Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Government Bubble

The end of the Clinton era saw the bursting of the dot com bubble. Rampant speculation drove tech stock prices to unsustainable levels, and what went up came crashing back down.

We just witnessed the housing bubble's big bang, with resulting downsizing of irresponsible lifestyles. There is talk of bulldozing entire vacant neighborhoods in some failed cities like Detroit.

Big Government Bubbles
Unfortunately, government gamblers who are incapable of learning anything continue to pump hot air into the increasingly unstable big government bubble.  President Obama, fresh from blowing trillions, brazenly says we are borrowing too much money from China, we're broke, and the irresponsible spending must stop. Oh, and he also wants to fund windmills and free health care for everybody.

California is Exhibit A
Paul Krugman can always be relied upon for liberal doses of economic advice.  Like practically all liberals, he stubbornly pins California's fiscal disaster to proposition 13, the conservative ballot measure that capped property taxes.

William Voegeli exposes Krugman's gross ignorance:
Property-tax revenues in the state have increased from $4.9 billion to $47 billion in the 30 years since Proposition 13. Adjust those figures for inflation and population growth, and property-tax revenues in California were 87 percent higher in 2009 than they were in 1979, chiefly because of rising property values.
Heedless of facts, Krugman goes a step further, predicting the same disaster for the US for the same reason: Those angry, stingy conservatives are blocking "responsible" tax increases that would pay for all this spending.

For Statist Progressives like Krugman, it's always too little taxation; never too much spending.

We all want something for nothing and the politicians are too cowardly to tell us no, so we end up with more government than we can afford.

China and the US are in a Mexican standoff: We can't stop irresponsible borrowing, they can't stop irresponsible lending, and the negative synergy has us on a mutual downward spiral.

Why doesn't it occur to anyone to downsize our overleveraged government?

Monday, August 30, 2010

Glenn Beck's Rally

It is a sad commentary on our public education system when a media personality has caused more people to read The US Constitution and the writings of the founders than has all of the primary and secondary teachers combined

I don't get a chance to see Glenn Beck's TV show, and I only catch snippets of his radio show on the way home from work, but I admire him.  I admire him for pulling himself out of a self-made gutter of materialism and alcoholism.  Not only did he come back from the brink, he leveraged his talents to become a multi-millionaire who stands atop a multimedia empire. 

I admire his ability to educate with humor.  What other media personality could hold an audience larger than all of MSNBC and CNN combined while talking about Woodrow Wilson, early 20th Century Progressivism, and the most obscure founding fathers?  Beck is a life-long learner, an everyman delving into history and philosophy.  He is an example for all of us.  

I didn't watch the rally, but I did wade into the poisonous stream of vile liberal invective that reached its high-water mark sometime after the rally.  I won't even honor any of it by echoing the lefty lunacy.

We are no longer a nation of laws

A liberal defending big government and bashing Beck maintained noisily that we are a nation of laws.  I responded that actually, no, we are not a nation of laws. At least not anymore.  When our government passes laws that favor certain groups (sugar farmers, for instance), and creates literally tons of laws per year that they themselves admit they have not read, and when they selectively enforce others, or refuse to enforce them (immigration), then they have made a mockery of the very concept of the rule of law.

We are a decadent nation ruled by the capricious whims of a political oligarchy grown fat upon corporate contributions. But that's OK with the left as long as the oligarchy favors them and their causes. That is what separates left from right today, and it will be the death of progressive democrats:  The right has turned a critical eye upon it's own politicians while the left childishly refuses to do the same.
...And I love how Glenn sends the left into bug-eyed apoplexy on a daily basis.  It's fun to watch.

Here's what I think about the rally, which drew "hundreds of thousands" according to McClatchy News Service:

We need government, and we need it to perform its constitutional duties efficiently and effectively.  We must also never lose our self-sufficiency. Katrina was a tragedy. People just sitting there as a hurricane hits them while school buses sit underwater.  Did government benumb them into inaction?

Government has its place, but so does freedom and liberty of each person to rule their own lives and make their own decisions.

Washington, We have an Imbalance

We have an imbalance between personal liberty and government power. That is what Glen Beck is (comically? cynically? self-servingly? genuinely? sincerely?) pointing to.

Too many look to government for too much. Meanwhile, over-reliance on government has caused our self-sufficiency to atrophy, like a muscle that goes unused.

It's about damning the DC-NY crony capitalist connection. It's a shout out to the politicians that the times they are a changin' (Apologies to Bob Dylan). We don't believe their crap anymore.

Statism is so Yesterday...

Have the republicans screwed us over? Of course they have. So have the democrats, who are just as deep in the crony capitalist sewer as the GOP.

Our nation is too big and too diverse for outmoded one-size-fits-all solutions.  We don't want to destroy the federal government, we want to restrict it to its constitutional duties so neither left nor right can hijack its coercive power for their own narrow financial and political interests.

The only solution is to take it away from Washington and hand it back to the states and the people. If we screw it up there, then it's our own damned fault.

Sunday, August 29, 2010

Global War on American Prosperity

Remake the Middle East?  We can't even remake Detroit

Our major combat forces are out of Iraq, and we're ramping up in Afghanistan, hoping to make enough gains so we can disentagle ourselves from there as well.

James Antle asks if conservative are ready to say "To hell with the hawks."
However reluctant conservatives may be to question retroactively the justice of our Bush-era wars, many are beginning to wonder if our prolonged occupations and nation-building exercises are worth American blood and treasure.  (AmCon- Antle)

I agree.  We should continue to reserve the right to reach out and smack someone, but the endless wars will end up breaking us.

Beware People Beating War Drums Who Have Never Been to War

I long ago grew tired of the tinny war cries of the William Kristols and the Frank Gaffneys.  If they want to invade Iran (a terrible idea), they can go raise their own damned army and do it themselves.  That country has the most pro-American populace in the Middle East outside of Israel.  Killing them and breaking their stuff is a sure way to blow it.
“Nation-building is the most prominent — and most important — part of the neocon doctrine,” wrote Jed Babbin in the American Spectator. “And the decision to pursue it is the principal reason that we are losing in Afghanistan, Iraq is falling apart, and the real enemy — the terror-sponsoring nations — have grown stronger.”
Neocons are Neo-Wilsonian Progressives

Antle goes on to identify three foreign policy strains of American conservatism, "... Jeffersonians, the Wilsonians, and the Jacksonians."  Go read the whole article and you will see why invasions and nation-building are very un-conservative activities.

Less is More

Respected journalist and scholar Robert D. Kaplan points to the future of American Military intervention in his 2007 article, Unheralded Military Successes.  He specifically highlights our low-key successes in Colombia and The Phillipines.
... the missions in Colombia and the Philippines showcase low-cost, low-risk and tediously unspectacular counterinsurgency options. And these places are not alone. Other U.S. military deployments I have observed recently -- in Algeria, Mali, Niger, Kenya, Georgia and Nepal -- are variations in a minor key. What stands out about all of these missions is their small scale and implicit modesty. We are not in combat in any of these countries -- but, rather, training local militaries that are or might be.

In all these countries, our military aid is combined with civilian development assistance. This is the global war on terrorism as preventive rather than as proscriptive. It doesn't cost much. You could spread Green Beret teams across Africa for the price of one F-22 jet. If there is another model out there that will keep the U.S. military engaged without overextending it, and will help move along inter-agency cooperation, I have not seen it.

I believe what he says because I've seen it myself in Colombia as well as other Central and South American countries. With a little military assistance, we chased communism from Central America in the 1980's, and Kaplan relates how we trained Eastern Europeans in the 1990's, building friendships that paid dividends after 9/11.

What's the common theme in all of this?
Small footprint, inexpensive, culturally-sensitive operations that help people who are willing to help themselves.  We conservatives bristle at progressives who want to remake America, so why should we support such budget busting efforts in other countries?

Saturday, August 28, 2010

Stop Making Sense

I rented "Stop Making Sense" a few weeks back.  It is a most excellent Talking Heads concert movie by master of the genre Jonathan Demme.  His film making magic combined with David Byrne's musical and performance art genius make this 1984 work a timeless masterpiece.

It was the second time I had rented it, and the kids liked it both times, first as toddlers dancing with the beat and imitating Byrne's quirky twitches, this time in a more staid teen repose, but nonetheless enjoying the show.

I first saw it in a no-kidding movie theater near downtown Denver.  The place was a threadbare palace from the past that featured a real stage with heavy embroidered curtains that slowly pulled back to reveal the silver screen. It featured art deco lumier lights on the walls and a real balcony they still allowed rowdy teens to roost in while watching the midnight movie (remember those?)

While the weirdos were watching Rocky Horror Picture Show (I never saw it) my friends and I were rocking the balcony, dancing to the Talking Heads...

Friday, August 27, 2010

Jimmy Carter Declared Supreme Leader of North Korea

"Do to North Korea what you did to America and I'll smack the crap outta ya!"
(API - Pyongyang) The North Korean Communist Politburo today tapped Former US President Jimmy Carter to be their new Dear Leader.  "We are a militarily impotent economic basket case," Communist Party Secretary Wu Hu told reporters, "Carter is perfect for the job."

In his inauguration speech, Premier Carter insisted he would continue his predecessor's policies and not rule out a nuclear attack on the United States.  "The world will feel the mighty wind of our atoms!"  He declared to an emaciated throng forced to cheer at gunpoint...

The White House sent congratulations, saying President Obama couldn't wait for a chance to bow to the new dictator of the hermit kingdom.

Thursday, August 26, 2010

A Libertarian Defense of the Religious Right

The Goose-Stepping progressives are on the march against Christianity and traditional American values

Social Conservatives have been fighting the good fight against radical Islam and gay marriage, and doing it with tact and logic, sending the knee-jerk, lock-step left into bug-eyed apoplectic seizures.  Whatever normal Americans are for, the anti-American left is against. 

They call support for civil partnerships hatred, although this solution would grant gay couples the rights to all that a heterosexual couple have excepting the word marriage.

They are reduced to planting agents provocateur at tea party rallies in order to get pictures of "racists."

They've been screaming since the Reagan 80's about the dangers of a Christian theocracy, while ignoring blown up buildings, decapitations, genital mutilation, and routine killings of adulteresses and homosexuals by the poor misunderstood Muslims.  It can't be easy maintaining such studied ignorance...

Here's the best defense of Christianity in the public arena that I have read to date, and it's written by an agnostic libertarian.

Engineer extraordinaire, professor, pundit, and committed hard-core libertarian Randall Hoven has written a piece in the American Thinker entitled, A Libertarian Defense of Social Conservatism. He defends social conservatism better than social conservatives do.

He exposes the angry left as the truly intolerant social engineers who use legislation and the courts to boss the rest of us around.  In the midst of all this cultural combat, this is a real morale boost.
The most obvious point to me is that it is the do-gooding liberals who are telling us all what we can and can't do.

The religious right usually just wants to be left alone, either to home school, pray in public or not get their children vaccinated with who-knows-what. Inasmuch as the "religious right" wants some things outlawed, they have failed miserably for at least the last 50 years.

Abortion, sodomy, and pornography are now all Constitutional rights. However, praying in public school is outlawed, based on that same Constitution.

I must say, even as an agnostic, something is creepy about a government that outlaws Nativity scenes at City Hall, but subsidizes Piss Christ. That tries to disband the Boy Scouts but promotes gay marriage. That disallows even voluntary, student-led prayer at public school, but teaches children how to put on condoms.

What is so funny about Bill Maher's Religulous? What is so bad about Sarah Palin hoping to do God's will or praying for His guidance?
Religious Conservatives can embrace core principles, keep our traditional values, and still attract small government and libertarian agnostics to our cause. Onward Christian (and Jewish) soldiers!

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Who Cares if The President is a Muslim?

Media-Crafted Controversy

This is traditionally a bad season for our sensationalistic, controversy driven 24/7 noise machine known as the "news" media. It's mid-August, and Americans are trying to enjoy what's left of summer.

We've unplugged for the summer, so media profits are sagging.  They respond by inventing stuff to get us back and basking in the glow of their corporate-sponsored cliffhangers.

So PEW conducts a poll and a news-hungry media is all over it like a pack of rabid jihadis on a cartoonist.

18% of Americans believe President Obama is a Muslim!

So what???

"If Bush ran the car in the ditch, Obama and the Democrats went on a drunken joy ride and drove it the wrong way down I-70, caused a two-thousand car pileup."

Besides drumming up business for "news" organizations, this also provides a convenient distraction from the ongoing economic catastrophe that has been made worse by Obama and the Pelosicrats.

It also ties in nicely with the Ground Zero Mosque Controversy

Random Question:  How would Michael Bloomberg and our lefty friends feel if the people building this mosque were rabid, unabashed America-haters who openly bragged about receiving Iranian money to build this victory monument?  What if they hated homosexuality and spoke in favor of wife-beating and honor killings?  Would it still be OK for them to build the mosque?  (The answer is yes, the First Amendment doesn't just protect noncontroversial happy talk.)

68% of Americans are opposed to the Ground Zero Mosque

So are 2/3 of us bigots?  Not according to freedom-for-all libertarian David Harsanyi:
There are those who continue to make the facile claim that anyprotest over Park51 is a display in un-American intolerance andcontempt for the Constitution. This position treats criticism offaith—religious institutions and symbols included—as tantamount to"bigotry."
Even a newfound reverencefor religious liberty on the left does not negate our right toprotest and criticize the philosophical disposition of others. Andapplying public pressure in an effort to shut down a project is asAmerican as protesting the arrival of a new Wal-Mart. Religiousinstitutions, as far as I can tell, are not exempted from thesedisputes.

In 2008, thousands of gay-rights activists protested the Mormontemple in Westwood, Calif., for its role in passing Proposition8—the ban on same-sex marriage. This grew into a national protestto undermine the influence of the Church of Jesus Christ ofLatter-day Saints—even though not every Mormonwas involved.
I don't recall anti-Mormon protesters being referred to asbigots for targeting religion; it appeared to be just the opposite,in fact.
The left rediscovers religious liberty

So welcome!  Welcome, my lefty friends to the cause of religious freedom!  I assume you will now be crossing the battle lines and locking arms with beleaguered Mormons who have been targeted by leftwing bigots.

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Afghanistan, as Explained by P.J. O'Rourke

When you don't know whether to laugh or cry, do both!

P.J. O'Rourke is the Mark Twain of our times.  Not the Novelist Twain, but the traveling and reporting Twain.  He's funny while treating deadly serious topics.  Reading his dispatches from the open sores that pockmark this planet make you laugh while you learn.

This conservative, who also wrote for National Lampoon Magazine, is a pretty damn good foreign correspondent, and he's far from pompous about it:
If you spend 72 hours in a place you’ve never been, talking to people whose language you don’t speak about social, political, and economic complexities you don’t understand, and you come back as the world’s biggest know-it-all, you’re a reporter.

He relates a conversation with his host who picked him up at Kabul Airport (A scary place, I've been there):
“The Suicides usually attack early in the morning,” Amin said. “It’s a hot country and the explosive vests are thick and heavy.”

I’d never thought about suicide bombing in terms of comfort. Here’s some guy who’s decided to blow himself gloriously to bits and he’s pounding the pavement all dressed up in the blazing sun, sweat running down his face, thinking, “Gosh this thing itches, I’m pooped, let’s call it off.”

“It’s the same with car bombs,” Amin said. “You don’t want to be driving around the whole day with police everywhere and maybe get a ticket.”

Imagine the indignity of winding up in traffic court instead of the terrorist equivalent of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
He writes of the contradictions of the tribal society.  Family and clan is important, but a national vacuum has killed post-Soviet recovery:
An Afghan civil society activist, whose work has put him under threat from the Taliban, admitted, “People picked Taliban as the lesser of evils.” He explained that lesser of evils with one word, “stability.”
A woman member of the Afghan parliament said that it was simply a fact that the Taliban insurgency was strongest “where the government is not providing services.” Rule of law being the first service a government must provide.
The member of parliament who laughed at the clash of civilizations laughed as well at what had passed for rule of law in Afghanistan. “Sure Afghanistan is unruly,” he said. “Afghans don’t like rules. No one likes rules. And that is what we have been—ruled. We have been ruled, not governed.”
 He gets to the crux of the problem we face there:

A journalist for Radio Azadi said, “Afghans were happy in principle that Americans brought peace and democracy. But when rival tribes began to use the U.S. to crush each other, the attitude of the Afghan people changed.”

It’s not that Afghans think Americans have sided with the wrong people in a systematic, strategic, or calculated way. It’s just that we came to a place that we didn’t know much about, where there are a lot of sides to be on, and we started siding with this side and that side and the other side. We were bound to wind up on the wrong side sometimes.

He then launches a hilarious thought experiment involving Scotsmen invading America with the best of intentions...
What if some friendly, well-meaning, but very foreign power, with incomprehensible lingo and outrageous clothes, were to arrive on our shores to set things right? What if it were Highland Scots?

There they go marching around wearing skirts and purses and ugly plaids, playing their hideous bagpipe music, handing out haggis to our kiddies and offending our sensibilities with a lack of BVDs under their kilts.

Maybe they do cut taxes, lower the federal deficit, eliminate the Department of Health and Human Services, and the EPA, give people jobs at their tartan factories and launch a manhunt for Harry Reid and the UC Berkeley faculty. We still wouldn’t like them.
Afghan corrupion?
Afghans have failed to move their corruption from the Rod Blagojevich model, which we all deplore, to the Barack Obama model, which we all admire.
We have troops fighting and dying in Afghanistan, and we've planted some seeds.  There is hope.  Afghanistan may never be the Switzerland of the Himalayas, but what country is?  We're giving them a shot to make something better, and if anyone can do it, General Petraeus and the US Military can.

Amid the funny bits are conversations with mullas and ordinary Afghanis.  Go read The 72-Hour Expert.  You might learn something, and have a laugh along the way.

Monday, August 23, 2010

A Mosque at Ground Zero... Who's Stupider Than Us?

Look at this guy.  He is the new face of racism in America.  And he's one of the few sane people left in Manhattan.

Having plastered all rightwing tea baggers as racists, the left has now moved on to tarring ordinary working class New Yorkers with the same idiotic brush.

He's telling the liberal morons on the Manhattan dhimmi council to get a clue and turn down the Ground Zero Muslim Monument to Religious Chauvinism and Global Violence.

"Va Fangu!"  He seems to be shouting.  "Get your stinkin' mosque off our hallowed ground, jackass!"
 But nobody's listening...

Here's a beautiful quote from one of the Muslim authors of this desecration:  
Iman Rauf's wife, Daisy Khan, stated that the planned community facility provided a much-needed space for parties and other venues for the area.(Catholic.org)
A space for parties??? 
Who the hell would want to go to a party at an Islamic center?  Women wrapped head to toe in curtains peeking at you through a little slit, guys hollering from towers, no pork bbq, no booze, that irritating whine-through-the-nose music...

Yes, they have a constitutionally-protected right to build it...
But just because you can doesn't mean you should.  They want to "build bridges" and promote "cultural understanding?"  Pissing off 2/3 of the nation is a hell of a way to do it...

So, yeah, build that 13-story edifice, but make it a multi-cultural, multi-faith center.  The Muslims can have the first 11 floors.  Put a Christian Church on the 12th and a Jewish Temple on the top floor.  Lets see how these Muslims for peace and moderation and multicultural understanding react to that plan...

Better yet, build this building and make sure it's facing east.

* - Yes, this is a retread, but it's timely.  To make up for my laziness, here's Pat Condell on the issue.  He says it so much better than I ever could...

Sunday, August 22, 2010

Here's How the Germans Handle Jihad

Liberals have found the constitution again!  All it took was a rousing anti-American cause...  

The good little Dhimmicrats are defending jihadis who want to build a mosque on ground zero (the wing of one of the hijacked planes fell on that site, so YES!  IT IS GROUND ZERO!) 

Meanwhile, in a surprising development, Europe shows us the way... 
Germany shut down a mosque last week...
... the Germans found the intestinal fortitude to commit a flagrant act of self-preservation and common sense by shutting down once and for all the Taiba mosque and affiliated community center which was a haven for the terror cell responsible for the 9/11 atrocity and other  jihadist activities.  Three of the 9/11 hijackers, including ring-leader Mohammed Atta, met there regularly before moving to America.

Hamburg’s Interior Minister, Christoph Ahlhaus explained the move in refreshingly frank terms: “We closed the Taiba mosque today because young men were converted to religious fanatics there…We have put an end to the spectre behind the walls on Steindamm [Street].”

 He goes on to offer a warning that all American religious freedom/free speech zealots currently siding with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf who plans to build the Ground Zero mosque should pay attention to very closely.
“A purported cultural association shamelessly exploited the freedoms of our democratic  state under the rule of law to recruit for holy war behind the scenes [emphasis added]…The association continuously promoted  jihadist, aggressive and anti-democratic ideology and religious views in recent years.  We do not tolerate organizations that are leveled against the constitutional order and the idea of understanding between cultures in an aggressive, militant way.” (Big Peace - Brad Schaeffer)
Here in America, the Ground Zero Mosque controversy rages on...

Fellow Coloradan David Harsanyi has the best take.  He burns down the liberal strawman about the first amendment and religious freedoms.  Americans agree Imam Ralf has a constitutionally-protected right to build their mosque; but that same majority (around 66%) also believes it to be a gross display of disrespect to those who died on that tragic day.  Here's the money quote:
"unlike many other faiths, ideological Islam has a poor track record of compatibility with liberal ideals. Surely, that's worth a discussion in free society. Or is it a case of intolerance to bring it up?" (Reason - Harsanyi)
Of course it's not intolerance.  Catholics and Mormons know what it's like to feel the brunt of suspicion, mockery and vile invective.  Why should Muslims get a pass?

Friday, August 20, 2010

Frogs in a Pot

We have more laws than we had 100 years ago, but we're less safe, less happy, and less free

Democrat and Republican Progressive rodents have nibbled away at our freedoms for over 100 years now.  John Stossel writes:
It's become easier to get into trouble. We've become a nation of a million rules. Not the kind of bottom-up rules that people generate through voluntary associations. Those are fine. I mean imposed, top-down rules formed in the brains of meddling bureaucrats who think they know better than we how to manage our lives.
Its always in the name of safety, security, equality, etc.  Meanwhile, Congress exempts itself from the laws it piles on us mere mortals while democratic voters cheer the trampling of our constitution.

It hit me a few months ago when the Supreme Court struck down Chicago dictator Daily’s unconstitutional gun ban.  Daily declared he would just rewrite the law.  I wrote a blog post featuring Ted Nugent declaring “Don’t.  Tread.  On.  Me.  Period!

What Gives Them the Right?
What gives an elected official the right to tell a free man he can’t own a gun to protect himself and his family?  Seriously.  We should be asking our elected officials that at every turn.  

But no, we are all suspect, with hundreds of thousands of incomprehensible laws hanging over our heads, and it’s all for the betterment of society.  Progress!  That is their talking point.  “We don’t let you run with scissors, Little Kurt, because you may hurt yourself of someone else.”  

“Someone might get hurt.  We have policemen to handle the bad guys.”

Yeah right.  You can’t sue the police department when your house is robbed or, God forbid, a loved one is murdered.  So the state denies us a fundamental right but fails to step in and fill the void.  That is just one of the myriad logical inconsistencies of progressivism.  

Progressivism Kills
People in liberal victim societies like New York and Chicago are lambs to the slaughter because their governments have disarmed them while failing to do the same to the predators.

Too many have no retirement savings because the Social Security siren song has dashed them upon the rocks of fiscal insolvency, while government-sponsored inflation ate away their savings.

Education performance decreases as federal government intervention increases

“Stimulus” money bailed out irresponsible state governments, keeping the economy-killing bloat alive and allowing them to dodge the hard decisions needed to restore fiscal sanity.

This is progress?

Thursday, August 19, 2010

Suicide Pacts

The US Constitution is not a Suicide Pact

... And thank God for that.  May He save us from the fate of Europe.  Angry Muslims are snuffing the light of reason on the old continent,.  Free speech and liberty are increasingly imperiled.

Now we have the Ground Zero mosque controversy.  I like David Harsanyi's observation in his article, Why is it bigoted to criticize religion?

Unlike many other faiths, ideological Islam has a poor track record of compatibility with liberal ideals. Surely, that's worth a discussion in a free society. Or is it a case of intolerance to bring it up?

And he exposes the American left as a four-flushing, incoherent rabble stumbling towards dhimmitude.  They rush to embrace all that is scorned and despised by normal Americans:
I don't recall anti-Mormon protesters being referred to as bigots for targeting religion; it appeared to be just the opposite, in fact.

I've not heard those who make generalizations about Catholicism referred to as bigots in Time magazine. Nor have I heard those who regularly disparage evangelicals called intolerant.
It is dark comedy when secular liberalism attempts to accommodate a chauvinistic and violent religion that hates free speech and has no concept of women's or gay rights.
The inherently inconsistent routine goes something like this:  

Misogynist obscurantist agitators swoop down out of the dark ages like a cloud of ravenous bats, infest a liberal democracy, and then use that democracy's freedoms to snuff its classical liberalism and all its inherent freedom's forever.  Welcome to dhimmitude.

This puts a whole new twist on Voltaire:

I may not agree with your screaming hatred, your silencing of free speech and the beheading of infidels, but I will defend to my culture's death your right to hate and silence and behead...

Reminds me of an Onion Piece from 2003, ACLU Defends Nazi's Right to Burn Down ACLU Headquarters.  Go read it.  Laugh, and then cry because a 2003 parody has become reality just seven years later,

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

From Locke to Stalin

Actor Joseph C. Phillips is not just another pretty face. He is the rare Hollywood star who can think cogently and express himself well in print. I highly recommend his article, Who is John Locke?

Phillips asks...
Is totalitarianism the natural end of all forms of government, or are men capable of ruling themselves? Without the foundation of Locke, do American children have the philosophical foundation necessary to understand what is truly evil about Stalin and Marx and conversely, what is good and unique about America?
Many libertarian thinkers, and historical evidence, point to a definitive conclusion that, yes, totalitarianism is the natural end of all forms of government. Good governance that protects liberty requires a constant struggle between the government and the governed. There is no stasis. It is a constant tug of war.

One Evil Leads to Another

As Hayek and others have observed, if we merely say Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini were evil and leave it at that, we learn nothing. For Hitler, Stalin and Mao were particularly evil not because of their totalitarianism, but because of the over 100 million human beings they murdered.

But what drove them to it?
They had a plan, like all central-planning statists do, and they needed for everyone to follow it. When all else fails, try brutality.
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false-face for the urge to rule it.
-- H.L Menckin
Obama is not a murderous Stalin, and the Democrats are not the Chinese Poltburo purging society for a great leap forward. They and do-gooders like them are not cruel or genocidal. They want to improve society, remake it in their image, and that is their sin: No man has a right to remake another in his image. No person or group has the right to forcefully impose their narrow vision on others, no matter how wonderful or well-meaning it may be.

Questions for Obama and the Democrats
You want everyone to cooperate with your plans. What will you do if incentives and bribery fail to sway the citizenry? Will you throw the carrots away and reach for the stick of legislative coercion?

If we still fail to comply, then what? This is where things get ugly.

Further, what empirical evidence can these statist busybodies point to showing that a collectivist, centrally-planned society is superior to one of free people where each determines his or her own future?

Our Right Come From Nature
Our rights must come from God (or nature if you prefer), a source that transcends mankind. The alternative is too horrible to bear.

Rights do not come from a ruling body or a document. We possess certain natural rights by virtue of our humanness. To believe otherwise is the ultimate human rights abuse. If our rights come from a document, then whatever that document says is valid: Slavery, rape, genocide... Whatever the drafters have written, shall be done.

No, you say? Then to what authority do you appeal with your objections to the ruling document? Another human being? What if she reaffirms what the document says, then what?

For this reason, our human rights of life, liberty and property must be an untouchable bedrock, inviolable.

The Founders knew it and they enshrined this ideal in the Declaration of Independence, but more importantly, in The US Constitution.

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

It's Not About The Women

Kirsten Powers is right. Afghanistan is not about womens rights
Yes, George W. Bush and others trotted out the “we need to help the women” argument to justify the invasion of foreign lands. But did anyone really take that seriously? Prior to the attacks of 9/11, we heard nary a peep from our government about human-rights abuses against women in Afghanistan.

And when has the United States ever engaged in military action with even the subsidiary purpose of freeing women under misogynist oppression? Let’s not forget that Saudi Arabia—a country where women are segregated from men, cannot vote or travel without the explicit approval of a male guardian, and are often harassed by baton-wielding religious police who ensure they are covered—is a key ally of the U.S.
She goes after President Obama as well:
The Obama administration has hardly been a profile in courage on the international women-rights front. Shockingly, the issue that has animated Obama is the important “right” of women to cover themselves. In his Cairo speech, Obama bragged that the “U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.”

The women of the world thank you.
I hate piling on, but if we value intellectual honesty, we must admit she’s got a point.

Yes, our forces created space for girls to go to school and women to work and express themselves where the opportunity presented itself. But we must also admit that upending societal and tribal norms (even misogynist 7th century ones) is detrimental to “winning hearts and minds.”

Monday, August 16, 2010

The Sun Also Sets

The Decline and Fall of the America Empire
Niall Ferguson provides a scary glimpse into a not too distant future where the US faces a precipitous decline. He’s no America-hater, but rather a Jeremiah warning us off the path to self-destruction.

Empires exhibit many of the characteristics of other complex adaptive systems, including the tendency to move from stability to instability quite suddenly.

The Bourbon monarchy in France passed from triumph to terror with astonishing rapidity. The sun set on the British Empire almost as suddenly.

The Suez crisis in 1956 proved that Britain could not act in defiance of the US in the Middle East, setting the seal on the end of empire.

What are the implications for the US today? The most obvious point is that imperial falls are associated with fiscal crises: sharp imbalances between revenues and expenditures, and the mounting cost of servicing a mountain of public debt.

Alarm bells should therefore be ringing very loudly indeed in Washington, as the US contemplates a deficit for 2010 of more than $US1.47 trillion ($1.64 trillion), about 10 per cent of GDP, for the second year running.
Since 2001, in the space of just 10 years, the federal debt in public hands has doubled as a share of GDP from 32 per cent to a projected 66 per cent next year. According to the Congressional Budget Office's latest projections, the debt could rise above 90 per cent of GDP by 2020 and reach 146 per cent by 2030 and 344 per cent by 2050.
Even more frightening, Craig Robets paints a bleak dystopia too dark for even Glen Beck ..

The Year America Dissolved, by Craig Roberts
It was 2017. Clans were governing America.  The first clans organized around local police forces. The conservatives’ war on crime during the late 20th century and the Bush/Obama war on terror during the first decade of the 21st century had resulted in the police becoming militarized and unaccountable.

As society broke down, the police became warlords... (Read More)
Think it can't happen here?  Economically powerful Argentines of 100 years ago didn't think so either.  Or ponder the dramatic but dignified decline of Great Britain...

It can happen here.

Sunday, August 15, 2010

God is Intolerant

Anne Rice has quit organized religion, writes Kirsten Powers in The Daily Beast.
In 1998, the legendary author had returned to her childhood faith of Catholicism, announcing she would no longer pen vampire novels but instead "write to glorify God." Last week, she announced she had "quit Christianity."

Christianity is Intolerant
Powers points a finger of condemnation at organized religion, evangelicals in particular, by citing research showing...
“...people between the ages of 16 and 29 see Christianity as "anti-homosexual, judgmental, hypocritical, and too political in alarming numbers."
Well, yes! Finally, someone bashing Christianity gets it right! God, as understood by Jewish as well as Christian followers, is against homosexual acts. God also frowns upon adultery, prostitution, drunkenness, coveting your neighbor’s wife and possessions, or even lusting after a woman in your heart.

God also wants us to help our neighbor, give alms to the poor and care for widows and orphans.

God is also judgmental--Remember that whole heaven or hell thing?

He laid down rules and he expects us to follow them. His prophets and apostles have also admonished all followers to be judgmental as well. Yes, he said “judge not, lest ye be judged” and Jesus admonished us to not criticize the speck in our brother’s eye while ignoring the beam in our own eye, for God will judge us by the same standards we hold others to.

He wants us to get our own house in order, but then he wants us to also test the spirits and make judgements of the rightness or wrongness of the actions of others.  The Bible is full of stories about people trying to correct wayward brothers and sisters. Peter even stared a couple to death for lying about their contribution to the church, so those who haven’t even read The Bible should spare us the indignation over our being judgmental.

We are All Hypocrites
Anyone who holds ideals that are higher than their actual state would be considered a hypocrite by these people’s reasoning. My favorite is when some liberal slobbers on about the founders being hypocrites. My response? Would it have been better if they just codified into law slavery and all other immoral things going on at the time? Christians, like the founders or anyone looking to better themselves and society, hold high ideals that they often fail to meet.

Finally, why should religious people butt out of politics? Everyone else, from Hollywood celebutards to angry Muslims and illegal aliens are in the arena, so why not Christians?

Saturday, August 14, 2010

John Wayne: "What I Want for My Daughter"

It was a different world back then.  John Wayne tells Dean Martin what he wants for his baby daughter.  And don't let Dean-o fool you, he was great in "Five Card Stud."

Network TV would censor this today...

Friday, August 13, 2010

Federal Government: Too Big to Succeed

John Stossel:  Free enterprise does everything better
Why? Because if private companies don't do things efficiently,they lose money and die. Unlike government, they cannot compelpayment through the power to tax.
Notice how every government "solution" involves more of what caused the problem in the first place? And how more money and more bureaucracy are always involved as well?"Oh yeah!"  Sneers the progressive.  "What about public roads?  Huh?  Huh?"

Private enterprise does roads better than government
In 1995, a private road company added two lanes in the middle ofCalifornia Highway 91, right where the median strip used to be. Itthen used "congestion pricing" to let some drivers pay to speedpast rush-hour traffic. Using the principles of supply and demand,road operators charge higher tolls at times of day when demand ishigh. [...]  Bureaucrats were skeptical. Nowcongestion pricing is a hot idea for both private and public roadmanagement systems.
He provides two more examples from France and Indiana.  Cheaper, better, faster is not in the bureaucrats' lexicon.  E-470 that skirts Denver to the east is one more example right here in Colorado.  Democratic governor Dick Lamm refused to fund a bypass, so businessmen got together and built one themselves, and it is a well-used, money-making road.  If I need to get to the airport or skirt around Denver in a hurry, I pay to use it.  If I'm not pressed for time, I don't.  

Michael Medved Piles On: The Most Dangerous Corporation in the World

What's the most powerful, arrogant and dangerous corporation in the world?
No corporation on the planet comes close to the United States government in sheer magnitude, or unimaginable, unprecedented power. The nation's top 100 corporations combined still fall far short of the behemoth in Washington, D.C., which conducts extensive operations in agriculture, weapons production, medical care, housing, real estate, education, mail delivery, policing, resource development, banking, the arts, security services, food provision, transportation and much, much more. 

Within five years, federal spending will consume 25% of every dollar generated by the private economy.

...they (Tea partiers, and a growing cohort of independents) focus on the federal deficit "not because it presents an imminent crisis of its own, necessarily, but because it signifies a kind of institutional recklessness, a disconnectedness from the reality of daily life."
The public also understands that such recklessness, such unsustainable spending, would bring individuals or small businesses to rapid financial ruin; only the largest corporations, and the federal government itself, can get away with long-standing patterns of irresponsibility. The contrast raises the painful issue of double standards: the application of different rules for the people and the powerful (a designation that includes both governmental and corporate elites).
If government had to run itself like a business and follow the rules it makes everyone else follow, we would not be in the mess we are in.

Thursday, August 12, 2010

Illegal Immigration, Stolen Birthright

It's time to end birthright citizenship
In Texas, between 60,000 to 65,000 babies achieve U.S. citizenship annually by being born in the state's hospitals, according to a tally released by the state's Health and Human Services Commission. Last year, such births represented almost 16 percent of the total births statewide. (Dallas Morning News)

It all revolves around the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution
The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868 as a way to block state laws that prevented former slaves from becoming citizens. It also effectively overruled the Dred Scott decision of 1857 in which the U.S. Supreme Court declared that slaves were mere property and could not become citizens.
The amendment offered a broad definition of citizenship in one simple sentence: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."  (Dallas Morning News)
We don't need to amend the constitution
Republicans are talking up legislation to end this backdoor citizenship, and liberals are screaming hysterically about Dred Scott being restored. Worse than the Democratic demagoguery, the press can't keep the facts straight. I keep reading about a constitutional amendment being required, but George Will isn't so sure:
... this irrationality is rooted in a misunderstanding of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." What was this intended or understood to mean by those who wrote it in 1866 and ratified it in 1868?
The authors and ratifiers could not have intended birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants because in 1868 there were and never had been any illegal immigrants because no law ever had restricted immigration.
This has been tested in a court of law
Appropriately, in 1884 the Supreme Court held that children born to Indian parents were not born "subject to" U.S. jurisdiction because, among other reasons, the person so born could not change his status by his "own will without the action or assent of the United States." And "no one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent."

... this decision "seemed to establish" that U.S. citizenship is "a consensual relation, requiring the consent of the United States."

So: "This would clearly settle the question of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens. There cannot be a more total or forceful denial of consent to a person's citizenship than to make the source of that person's presence in the nation illegal."
All it takes is some legislation enacting what the Supreme Court has already affirmed
Gralia (Lino Graglia of the University of Texas law school) seems to establish that there is no constitutional impediment to Congress ending the granting of birthright citizenship to persons whose presence here is "not only without the government's consent but in violation of its law."


Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Democrats Pass the "Me First" Bill as a Payoff to Government Employees Unions

Welcome to the Anti-Capitalist, Centrally-Planned Economy

George Bush and his merry gang of Wall Street looters sent capitalism reeling.  Now the neo-socialist Democrats under Obama are finishing the job.  Can't have pampered government workers taking pay cuts like the rest of America, noooo way!

Not only is the federal government giving states more money to pay off government unions, it's also dictating how it is to be spent:
Upset that Texas Republican Governor Rick Perry put some of his state's stimulus money in reserve, Democrats stipulated that Texas can receive education money only if it spends some of the earlier stimulus funds.
Congress is sending a message to Perry, said Representative Sheila Jackson Lee: "Don't fool with money for children and education."(Reuters)
Hugo Chavez would be proud of comrade Sheila.  Have you wondered what the progressive statist alternative to capitalism would look like?  This is it!
Since the beginning of the recession, the number of unemployed has increased by more than 8 million people. For $800 billion, we could have handed every one of these people a check for $100,000—which gives a sense of what was possible with that much money and just how inefficient the actual program was. (Weekly Standard)
This is what a centrally-planned economy powered by a government "jobs program" looks like.  Lawrence B. Lindsey, in the same Weekly Standard article, shows that the stimulus is a failure as judged by the White House's own standards.  No wonder White House economist Christina Romer is escaping reality and slinking back to Berkley.

The answer, of course, is free-market capitalism
Individuals pursuing their self-interests, or "greed," as the modern day socialists in our midst call it.  Government getting out of the way and freeing up capital to be used by free persons as they see fit.

Watch the great Milton Friedman school Phil Donohue on the virtues of capitalism.  One of the rare times Phil has ever been left speechless...

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Government as God

Pope Pelosi
They’re already calling Sharron Angle a kook, and this will only add to it:
U.S. Sen. Harry Reid's campaign criticized his GOP challenger Sharron Angle on Wednesday for telling a religious broadcaster that the Obama administration is violating the First Commandment by expanding federal programs and making "government our God." (LVR Journal)
Progressives have made a god of government
They deny our basic rights under natural law and insist the US Constitution is outdated. That leaves us with government decree backed by black-robed mullas wielding gavels.

Here's an Example
That a Judge would make the following statement that presumes such government power is itself a dangerous sign of the times. If this is not government as god, I don’t know what is:
[A]ffording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs. (USA Today)
Of course, he is right in the constitutional sense: Government may not infringe upon the free exercise of religion in this country. But it is scary that a judge would even entertain such a thought or be required to reaffirm such a fundamental right.

This new commandment handed down by Judge Walker reeks of I AM:

"gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage.”
And if this isn’t an angry god firing thunderbolts down from Mount Sinai, I don’t know what is:
How about a Muslim man having four wives?  I assume calling that inferior would also not be a proper basis for legislation.  Hello Sharia USA!

Obama and Pelosi, Political Godlings

Here's a Speaker Pelosi quote from Politico:
“I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet,” she says impatiently when questioned. “I will not have this debate trivialized by their excuse for their failed policy.”
Here is Senator Obama's quote upon his winning the nomination:
"I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that [...] this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal"
These and other progressive pronouncements of grandeur falling upon a worshipful, unquestioning electorate belie a Government God that is way more dangerous and intolerant than the real one in heaven.

Monday, August 9, 2010


Peter Ferrara has done America a great service by writing his brilliant piece, The Green Pied Piper from Chicago.  This is the definitive Obamanomics critique to date.  Here are a few jewels I've plucked from the article...
For the record, President Obama's budget projected a deficit of $1.6 trillion for this year, after a deficit of $1.4 trillion last year, while the deficit in Bush's last year totaled $459 billion. If President Obama didn't want his soaring, record shattering deficits, he should not have increased federal spending by 25%, and federal welfare spending by one-third, in just his first two years in office.

The Republicans Never Spent Like This
The last budget adopted by a Republican-controlled Congress provided for a deficit of $161 billion in fiscal 2007. President Obama's budget for this year provided for a deficit ten times as large at $1.6 trillion. That is why Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) accurately told Obama earlier this year, "The annual deficits under the Republicans became the monthly deficits under the Democrats."

Deregulation is not to Blame
Overregulation contributed to the crisis by bludgeoning banking institutions into making bad mortgage loans, granting monopoly powers to rating agencies that labeled ultimately toxic subprime mortgage securities as AAA investments, and then forcing financial institutions to write the value of those securities down to almost nothing under "mark to market" regulations.
I love this "green" zinger...
But the economics of President Obama's prosperity through "clean" energy plan is even more transparently nuts than the science. [...]  First, the government provides enormous subsidies, just more bailouts actually, for businesses to pursue inherently unreliable and unworkable "alternative" energy sources such as wind and solar, the energy that powered the Roman Empire.
All Energy Subsidies are not Created Equal
The U.S. Department of Energy reports that government energy subsidies amount to $0.25 per megawatt for oil and gas, $0.44 per megawatt for coal, $1.59 for nuclear, $23.37 for wind and $24.34 for solar. (Oil is actually not subsidized at all, but disfavored by punitive taxes.) And that was before President Obama's "investments" adding up to an additional $80 billion per year in federal "alternative energy" subsidies.
Ferrara closes by observing how President Obama disparages the pro-liberty idea of an "Ownership Society," and instead embraces government dependency for all.
We should not be surprised that a red diaper baby disparages ownership and property rights, a view central to socialist philosophy all the way back to Marx.

Sunday, August 8, 2010

Judge Walker's Rape of Reason

Judge Walker's Prop 8 decision is illogical and an abuse of the law, according to critics

The libertarian in me says people are free to do what they want so long as it does no harm to others.  David Harsanyi sums up this point of view in his article, Time for a Divorce.
But isn't it about time we freed marriage from the state?

Imagine if government had no interest in the definition of marriage. Individuals could commit to each other, head to the local priest or rabbi or shaman -- or no one at all -- and enter into contractual agreements, call their blissful union whatever they felt it should be called and go about the business of their lives.

I certainly don't believe that gay marriage will trigger societal instability or undermine traditional marriage -- we already have that covered -- but mostly I believe your private relationships are none of my business.
For the tried and true culture warriors, this just won’t do. I too am opposed to cultural and definitional finagling. Marriage is a time-tested institution common to almost all cultures, and but for a few rare exceptions, it has always meant a union of opposite sexes.

An Illogical and Biased Ruling

Dan McLaughlin has written the definitive article on the subject, The Prop 8 Decision, Having it Both Ways. In it, he reveals the logical inconsistencies of Judge Walker’s central thesis:
Judge Walker’s decision is internally, logically inconsistent in its treatment of the worth of cultural values, arguing that morality and tradition are not a valid basis for supporting the legal status of marriage, but at the same time finding a Constitutional violation from the fact that the same-sex alternative (domestic partnerships) lacks the social and cultural status that marriage has…and which it derives from its grounding in longstanding moral, cultural and religious traditions.
McLaughlin also explains the different sections of a court ruling, and points out how the judge smuggled his biased assertions into the “Facts” section of this particular one. If you want to understand the legal aspects of the case, this is a must-read.

Moral Reasoning

Matthew J Franck’s “Assault on Moral Reasoning” shows how to argue this subject on its merits without resorting to biblical principles which have no standing in US Law. He also explains how despite this, the societal norms of a people, informed by their faith, do indeed figure into lawmaking.
Once it would have been thought to strengthen the case for a law, that it rested on the moral views of the lawmakers, if no countervailing right against being governed by such views could be adduced. And it would have been a matter of no legal suspicion whatsoever that the moral views informing a law found confirmation in widely held religious views as well.

For such moral principles are not articles of faith, in the sense of being specially revealed to the elect or the faithful. They are the conclusions of trains of reasoning about right and wrong, and about human ends and the fitness of the means to them.

In language we might borrow from Plato's Euthyphro, the moral norms that govern marriage are embraced by the pious not because they are mysterious commands of an inscrutable divine will, but because they are rationally knowable as good in themselves, and for this reason find support in the dictates of faith as well.
Just as important, Franck explains the logical fallacies in Judge Walker’s reasoning.
Perhaps the most surprising thing in the judge's opinion is his declaration that "gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage." This line, quoted everywhere within hours with evident astonishment, appears to be the sheerest ipse dixit-a judicial "because I said so"-and the phrase "no longer" conveys that palpable sense that one is being mugged by a progressive.
If you want to argue this issue and defend your point of view, I highly recommend these two articles. For extra credit, there’s more reading at the end of this post.

Further Reading:
Patrick McIlheran - Right On
USA Today - It’s Not About You
WSJ - Prop 8

Saturday, August 7, 2010

Saturday Reading

Saturday readership is always low here at Western Hero, so it's a good time for me to do a "link dump."  I bookmark interesting stuff intending to blog about it, but alas, there just isn't enough time...

Build your walls with cannon balls
Intellectual Ammo, the tab at the top of this blog, contains a treasure trove of original thinking on timeless issues.  No opinion pieces, just authoritative government data and think tanks.  If you enjoy shooting it out with libs and converting the undecided, go get your ammo!

US sovereign debt is reaching scary levels, with no apparent way down.  Here's just one reason why:  Obama and the Pelosicrats' spending is locked in forever...
A good percentage of the structural increase in the deficit is because last year’s “stimulus” was not stimulus in the traditional sense. Rather than a one-time injection of spending to replace a cyclical reduction in private demand, the vast majority of the stimulus has been a permanent increase in the base level of government spending — including spending on federal jobs. (NY Times)
Here's a good Bloomberg article on Debt and Taxes
The writer plays it down the middle, weighing the advantages and disadvantages of letting the Bush tax cuts expire.  Good analysis of our fiscal position and what our options are.

What is Populism?
The left hates the tea party because it has taken on a populist tone, and populism is supposed to be their gig.   Henry Olson at American Enterprise Institute has written an excellent history of Populism in America, Populism, American Style

Finally, Peggy Noonan writes, America is at risk of boiling over.

Friday, August 6, 2010

The Arizona Experiment

Immigrants are self-deporting from Arizona, showing that if we enforce the law immigrants will go peacefully.

It also provides a rare opportunity to test ideas. Anti-illegal immigration people are tired of hearing “...jobs Americans won’t do,” while others insist we need to import cheap labor. Will Arizona collapse without its cheap labor? Or will previously unemployed Arizonans pick up the slack?

Drastically reducing the illegal immigrant population by allowing them free passage home would put this nation to the test. Could we do our own dirty work? We have 10% unemployment in this country and college students who need money; I think we could. Unfortunately, we will probably never be able to test this question at the national level.

Americans Won’t do the Jobs because the Pay is Crappy!

Supply and demand works in the labor market as well. Employers compete for employees by offering pay and incentives. Bring in illegals who can be intimidated and abused into accepting poor working conditions and shabby pay, and the native born American workers are cut out of the market. Back in the old days, labor unions would have called these illegal workers scabs.

The Root of the Illegal Immigration Problem

Pure libertarianism is against immigration impediments. People, jobs and businesses should be free to flow where they will with no border controls. Sounds good, but the thinking person intuits that this will not work.

Milton Friedman explained why:
“You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state.”
The difference in conditions between the developed and under developed world is just too great. Add in the enormous pay differential and lax law enforcement, and the US is a giant illegal immigrant magnet.

Thursday, August 5, 2010

Ho Ho Ho! Green Jobs Scam!

  • One report examining state and local efforts to encourage the creation of "'green jobs"' found that the subsidies sometimes exceed $100,000 per job created.
  • Other analysts have pointed out that much of money targeted for "'green job"' creation is being sent overseas.
  • ABC News reported that nearly 80 percent of the close to $2 billion in the stimulus bill dedicated to wind power went to foreign manufacturers of wind turbines. (ncpa.org)

Here is a collection of articles on the money wasting BS known as "Green Jobs." 
Read them and you will see why those who have studied it call it a scam:
President Obama announced this week that Washington will offer $2.3 billion in tax credits for "clean energy" jobs. Using his very own pie-in-the-sky calculations, it puts the cost of every job at a tax-financed $135,000.

The uncalculated part of the above equation is this: Bogus jobs kill real jobs. At Madrid's King Juan Carlos University, for instance, a study found that in Spain -- the very country Obama has held out as the exemplar of greening (and with only a 19-plus percent unemployment rate!) -- every green job created had destroyed 2.2 jobs in other sectors of the economy. (Harsanyi - Faux Recovery)
 Government-sponsored "Green Jobs" did even more damage in Italy:
They found that in Italy, the losses were worse than they were in Spain: Each green job cost 6.9 jobs in the industrial sector and 4.8 jobs across the entire economy.  (IBD - Green Jobs Myth)
Here in  America, 'green energy" actually destroys jobs and sends work overseas:
Despite all the talk of green jobs, the overwhelming majority of stimulus money spent on wind power has gone to foreign companies, according to a new report by the Investigative Reporting Workshop at the American University's School of Communication in Washington, D.C. 
Nearly $2 billion in money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has been spent on wind power, funding the creation of enough new wind farms to power 2.4 million homes over the past year. But the study found that nearly 80 percent of that money has gone to foreign manufacturers of wind turbines. 
"According to our estimates, about 6,000 jobs have been created overseas, and maybe a couple hundred have been created in the U.S." (ABC News - Wind Power no Jobs)
The Washington Post  explains how smart grid work may be a boon to those who manufacture the pieces, but new technologies such as smart meters will throw thousands of utility company readers and technicians out of work.

Here's the real scoop on "Green Jobs."  Millions in political payoffs to SEIU: 
Last week, the U.S. Department of Labor announced $7.4 million in green jobs training grants to SEIU Local 32BJ and H-Cap, a national partnership of SEIU healthcare unions and major employers. These two grants are part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and will provide essential green training to help 5,200 Americans get jobs in expanding green industries over the next two years. (http://www.seiu.org)

As The National Center for Policy Analysis says, .  The Green Jobs obsession distracts from real economic recovery.  

The saddest part of this progressive travesty is the opportunity costs.  Billions spent chasing windmills could have been better used by real businesses to hire real people for real jobs.