Thursday, January 14, 2010
Liberal Jack Cafferty: Nancy Pelosi is a "horrible woman"
Wow, you know it has to be bad when even liberals are noticing the breathtaking corruption and arrogance of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Nothing further needs to be said about the great video below the fold.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Chavez the Fool Strikes Again
Hugo Chavez is a fool, and an arrogant one at that. Foolishness and arrogance seem to go together, do they not? The AP reported Monday that Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez shut down stores this week that raised their prices following the government's recent currency devaluation. According to the AP, "authorities began inspecting retailers a day after President Hugo Chavez threatened to temporarily close or take over businesses that raise prices as a result of the devaluation he announced Friday. Chavez said he is determined to curb inflation — even if it means deploying the military to prevent price hikes." 1 Though Mr. Chavez seems to think much of himself, he obviously knows nothing about economics - and his nation is paying the price. You cannot devalue a currency and expect prices to stay the same. Money is a commodity like anything else, therefore it's value to everything else is relative. If the purchasing power of money is devalued, that means it purchases less than it did before. And if it purchases less than it did before, that means it takes more money to purchase goods and services. In other words, prices have to go up. If they don't, businesses can't make a profit and stay in business.
Chavez may intend for his heavy-handed measures to make goods and services more affordable for the poor, but the end result is going to be scarcity. If retailers can't sell and make a profit, they will choose not to sell at all.
With policies like these, Chavez is doing extreme damage to his nation's economic future by making it astronomically risky to start a business. Think about it: would you want to invest tens or hundreds of thousands of your hard earned cash knowing the government might choose to regulate your pricing, shut your business down, or confiscate it altogether? Most people wouldn't. It will takes years of sound economic policy to repair the perception that Venezuela is a risky place to do business, and in the meantime the citizens of the nation will suffer.
References
1. Venezuela shutters stores in price-hike crackdown. (January 9, 2010). Retrieved January 9, 2010, from http://www.dailyfinance.com/article/venezuela-shutters-stores-in-price-hike/
Thursday, December 31, 2009
The Treaty of Tripoli Provides No Support for Secularist Argument
Misguided as he is most of the time, Ed Brayton over at Scienceblogs is a pretty bright guy. But I'm amazed that he and so many others still refer to the Treaty of Tripoli as support for the position that the United States was founded within a secular framework. Most Americans probably have never even heard of the Treaty of Tripoli, yet a short quote from the document taken completely out of context is often presented as a major component of the argument for a secular Founding. The phrase in question is as follows, from Article 11 of the treaty: Note that there is no period after the word "religion", only a semicolon. This means that the thought expressed by the article continues beyond the oft-quoted opening statement. To properly understand the complete intended meaning of the drafter, the entire article must be taken as a whole. The most important phrase, in my opinion, and the one that most colors the meaning of the article as a whole, is the one that concludes the article: This phrase indicates that Article 11 was not making a declaration that America's government was not rooted in a Christian worldview. Why would the representatives of Tripoli even care about that? I would think that the details about the philosophical underpinnings of the American government would be irrelevant in a peace treaty, particularly if the treaty was with a nation with a vastly different philosophical worldview. Why highlight your differences when you're trying to make peace, right? The key phrase is "pretext arising from religious opinions". This refers to conflicts deriving from differing religious views. In other words, by signing, the parties to the treaty are agreeing not to start any holy wars. And why would the issue of "religious opinions" need to even be raised in a peace treaty with a Muslim nation? Because it was well-understood that the United States was a predominantly Christian nation, meaning that the vast majority of citizens held to a Christian worldview. This is not to say that the United States was a Christian theocracy as many Muslim nations are theocracies, only that the United States was heavily influenced by a Judeo-Christian worldview. If that was the case, it is pretty safe to say that a Christian worldview heavily influenced the framing of America's system of government. And why would it be any other way considering the Founders came from heavily Christianized Europe? The bottom line is that the Treaty of Tripoli provides zero support for the position that America was founded within a strictly secular framework. Secularists would be better off to drop the argument altogether. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;
Hopefully that didn't read like a complete sentence, because it wasn't one. And using it like one is disingenuous at best (or just ignorant), lying by omission at worst. If taken as a complete sentence, it certainly gives the impression that the treaty is declaring that Christianity, in no shape or form, had any influence on the Founding of our nation. However, let's look at the whole article for the context, which is important: Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
. . . no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Senators Display Their Constitutional Ignorance on the Health Care Issue
Democrats have demonstrated that they have no reservations whatsoever about trampling underfoot the Constitution in their quest to implement some form of national health care system. One of the most disturbing provisions in the health care bill working through the Senate is the requirement that all Americans purchase health insurance or potentially face fines and jail time. CNSNews asked several Democratic Senators to identify the part of the Constitution that gives them the authority to make this mandate. The following were some of the responses, as reported by CNSNews:
Senator Reed (D-Rhode Island) responded as follows:Let me see, I would have to check the specific sections, so I'll have to get back to you on the specific section. But it is not unusual that the Congress has required individuals to do things, like sign up for the draft and do many other things too, which I don't think are explicitly contained [in the Constitution]. It gives Congress a right to raise an army, but it doesn't say you can take people and draft them. But since that was something necessary for the functioning of the government over the past several years, the practice on the books, it's been recognized, the authority to do that.
Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-Arkansas) apparently believes that "Congress has the authority to force individual Americans to buy health insurance because the U.S. Constitution 'charges Congress with the health and well-being of the people.'"
Senator Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana) deferred to the lawyers when questioned:“Well, we’re very lucky as members of the Senate to have constitutional lawyers on our staff, so I’ll let them answer that."
The scariest thing about this is that it doesn't seem to have ever occurred to these Senators to question whether they have the constitutional authority to mandate purchasing health insurance. We are truly in trouble if constitutionality is the farthest thing in the minds of our congressional leadership when deliberating legislation. The truth is that Congress has no right or authority whatsoever to require that we purchase health insurance. The proper role of government, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, is to secure our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property (rendered "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration). Instead of securing our rights, this mandate plunders and violates them. If we aren't allowed the liberty to make financial and health decisions on our own without government interference, how can we possibly say we are free? The proper role of government is to protect and defend our unalienable rights, not attempt to be our caretaker.
“But what I will say is that most certainly it is within Congress’ jurisdiction to come up with a way to have a health insurance funded with shared responsibility, is the way I like to, you know--government has a responsibility, individuals have a responsibility and business has a responsibility."
If there is one good thing to result from the liberal takeover of our federal government a year ago, it's that Americans can now see what liberal governance looks like. I believe that the more the radical, left wing leadership in Congress and the White House push authoritarian, nanny-state policies, the more they seal their fate in the 2010 elections.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Democrats Accuse Joe Wilson of Being Motivated by Racism
Talk radio host Mark Levin has said that liberals are obsessed with two things: sex and race. I couldn't agree more. Liberals are always obsessing about sex, whether it is pushing the limits of decency in public and the media, agitating for more sex education at younger ages, or conjuring up new rights based on sexual behaviors and preferences. The other liberal obsession, race, reared it's ugly and well-worn head once again today thanks in part to the perennially ridiculous Jimmy Carter, who claimed that "racial politics played a role in South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst during President Obama's speech to Congress last week and in some of the opposition the president has faced since taking office". Carter commented as follows to NBC News:"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American . . . I live in the South, and I've seen the South come a long way, and I've seen the rest of the country that shares the South's attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African-Americans."
Carter continued with the following:
"That racism inclination still exists, and I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of belief among many white people -- not just in the South but around the country -- that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It's an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply.""I think it's based on racism. There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president . . . The president is not only the head of government, he is the head of state. And no matter who he is or how much we disagree with his policies, the president should be treated with respect."
As disgraceful as these comments are, even more ridiculous were comments made by Representative Hank Johnson, a Democrat from Georgia, regarding Rep. Joe Wilson. The following is from FOX News:Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst last week drew new recriminations from his colleagues Tuesday, with a member of the Congressional Black Caucus suggesting that a failure to rebuke the South Carolina Republican would be tantamount to supporting the most blatant form of organized racism in American history.
Liberals absolutely cannot let the issue of race go. Will there ever come a day when the scourge of slavery and institutionalized discrimination will be buried forever, never to be dredged up? Or is the charge of racism just far too tempting a way for liberals to demonize their opponents? The comments by Carter and Rep. Johnson are absolutely disgraceful and inexcusable. We will never be free from the legacy of racism as long we tolerate irresponsible race-baiters that continue to saddle our society with guilt for the sins of the past.
Making an obvious reference to the Ku Klux Klan, Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., said Tuesday that people will be putting on "white hoods and white uniforms again and riding through the countryside" if emerging racist attitudes, which he says were subtly supported by Wilson, are not rebuked. He said Wilson must be disciplined as an example.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Stimulating the Economy With Pork . . . Literally
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack apparently was annoyed at Matt Drudge for pointing out that stimulus dollars were spent on pork - real pork, as in ham products. According to the New York Daily News, "federal bean counters had spent $1.19 million for '2 pound frozen ham sliced.' An additional $16.7 million contract was earmarked simply for 'canned pork'." Vilsack claimed "the purchases for sliced ham and other contracts - including mozzarella and other cheeses - were to provide soup kitchens and homeless shelters with food for the needy." Nevermind the fact that Vilsack formerly was the governor of Iowa and that Iowa is "the nation's No. 1 pork producer." 1 It certainly makes sense that he would defend the purchases since it was his own former constituents that directly benefitted. It also wouldn't be surprising if this pork project was payback for some campaign contributions to Iowa's congressional delegation.
As annoying as it is that the federal government spends money this way, what is most galling is the fact that Vilsack "argued that buying hams for poor people would stimulate the economy, in line with Obama's $787 billion stimulus package." 2 Vilsack said the following:"While the principal purpose of these expenditures is to provide food to those hardest hit by these tough times . . . the purchases also provide a modest economic benefit . . . [to] food retailers, manufacturers and transportation companies as well as the farmers and ranchers who produce our food supply." 3
If this kind of thinking resulted in just a few million dollars of federal pork barrel spending every year, maybe it wouldn't be that big of a deal. The problem is that this kind of thinking currently permeates through all levels of government. The belief is essentially this: if the government spends money to buy stuff for people it is stimulating the economy because businesses are being supported by government funds. The businesses can employ new people, purchase new equipment, new inventory, etc. That's a good thing, isn't it? Well, that depends on how you look at it. The problem is that most people seem to only acknowledge one side of the equation. Sure, government money stimulates pork producers when it is used to purchase nearly $18 million in pork products. I'm sure the employees of the pork producers got bonuses, bought stuff, went on vacation, etc. But didn't that $18 million have to come from somewhere? Before the government can give money to one person, does it not first have to take it from another?
Frederic Bastiat, a French philosopher, economist, and statesmen who lived in the 19th century, illustrated the fallacy of Vilsack's thinking with the parable of the broken window. The parable, reproduced below, is part of a larger work entitled That Which is Seen And That Which is Not Seen that is well worth reading.Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James B., when his careless son happened to break a square of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact, that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation - "It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?"
With regard to federal purchases of pork products, "that which is seen" is that pork producers are wealthier because the federal government spent $18 million on pork products. However, "that which is not seen" is that $18 million or more will have to be extracted from taxpayers to cover it. Taxpayers, in turn, will have less money to spend on other things. The net benefit of this kind of spending actually is zero because money was simply moved from one hand to another with a little skimmed off the top for government overhead. No new wealth was created in the process, therefore the economy gained nothing. If buying pork products is so beneficial to the economy, why don't we increase the spending to $18 billion? Why not have the government buy up all the agricultural products currently available for sale in the entire country? Wouldn't that benefit the economy because all the farmers and ranchers who would suddenly be flush with cash to spend on cars, flat screen TVs, and iPods? Maybe that would be true in Vilsack's world, but in the real world things work a little differently.
Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.
Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade - that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs - I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.
But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."
It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.
Let us take a view of industry in general, as affected by this circumstance. The window being broken, the glazier's trade is encouraged to the amount of six francs; this is that which is seen. If the window had not been broken, the shoemaker's trade (or some other) would have been encouraged to the amount of six francs; this is that which is not seen.
And if that which is not seen is taken into consideration, because it is a negative fact, as well as that which is seen, because it is a positive fact, it will be understood that neither industry in general, nor the sum total of national labour, is affected, whether windows are broken or not.
Now let us consider James B. himself. In the former supposition, that of the window being broken, he spends six francs, and has neither more nor less than he had before, the enjoyment of a window.
In the second, where we suppose the window not to have been broken, he would have spent six francs on shoes, and would have had at the same time the enjoyment of a pair of shoes and of a window. 4
Government money is well spent if it prudently invested in projects that directly support wealth creation, such as roads and energy infrastructure. Purchasing $18 million worth of pork products was not stimulus, it was a handout to favored constituents. The "stimulus" rationale was simply the cover story used to justify it.
References
1. Drudge story on pork draws ire from President Obama's agriculture chief. (July 21, 2009). Retrieved July 21, 2009, from http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/07/21/2009-07-21_obama_admin_calls_drudge_pork_story_slop.html
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Frederick Bastiat, What is Seen and What is Unseen. (n.d.). Retrieved July 21, 2009, from http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Senator Barbara Boxer Gets Taken Down a Few Notches
How the heck did Barbara Boxer get elected to the US Senate anyway? Even the San Francisco liberals who overwhelmingly voted for her have to be embarrassed by her latest gaffe. In a recent hearing in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Boxer plays the racial politics game and elicits a strong response from Harry C. Alford, the head of the Black Chamber of Commerce. Alford apparently expect to testify about the specifics of energy policy, yet Boxer apparently was only interested in getting him to fall in line with other black groups like the NAACP. Check out the video below, and feel free to cheer out loud at how Alford brings Boxer down a few notches.
If there is one thing worth noting about Boxer, it's that she is incredibly arrogant. Check out how she handled this exchange with a General in the US military:
Amazing, isn't it? Maybe Boxer should consider how hard the General worked to get where he is instead of talking to him as if he's a bratty teenager. In the military, addressing a woman as "ma'am" is a sign of respect. Boxer is wrong to take offense to it and even more wrong to publicly chastise him for it.
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://kitconet.com/images/quotes_special.gif)
