Obama's Contempt, Reid's & the Left's Hypocrisy

Playing Politics with the Constitution and the Law
--by Roger Pilon, January 5, 2012

Today POLITICO Arena asks:

Did Obama have the authority to make the Cordray and the NLRB appointments, since the Senate is technically not in recess? And will the president’s shift from bipartisan conciliator to partisan agitator pay off? My response:

All of Obama’s appointments yesterday are illegal under the Constitution. And, in addition, as too little noted by the media, his appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is legally futile. Under the plain language of the Dodd-Frank Act that created the CFPB, Cordray will have no authority whatsoever.

Yesterday, Professors John Yoo and Richard Epstein, writing separately, made it crystal clear that the president, under Article II, section 2, may make temporary recess appointments, but only when the Senate is in recess. Add in Article I, section 5, and it’s plain that the Senate is presently not in recess, just as it wasn’t under Senate Democrats when George W. Bush wanted to make recess appointments. The difference here is that Bush respected those constitutional provisions while Obama — never a constitutional law professor but only a part-time instructor – ignores them as politically inconvenient. Attempts by Obama’s apologists to say the Senate is not in session are pure sophistry and, in the case of Harry Reid, rank hypocrisy, as this morning’s Wall Street Journal brings out.

But clear beyond the slightest doubt is the language of the statute (itself unconstitutional on any number of grounds not relevant here). As my colleague Mark Calabria wrote yesterday, “authorities under the Act remain with the Treasury Secretary until the Director is ‘confirmed by the Senate.’ A recess appointment, even if it were constitutional, is not a Senate confirmation. There is simply no wiggle room in that language that gives Cordray any authority, as litigation will soon make plain.

So what is this? It’s politics — Chicago politics, plain and simple. If any doubt remained, three years into his presidency, that Obama is a master demagogue, with class warfare as his central tool, this incident should dispel it.

Where are all those outraged democrats who lambasted President Bush for supposed evils and disregards for the Constitution, and the rule of law, now? Oh, that's right! Leaning back on their hypocritical backsides praising the lawless actions of THEIR president! You folks on the left want to blast senate republicans because they thwart confirmation of Obama's nominees? What hypocrites! Democrats have done the same.

I have never been more angry at a sitting president in my entire adult life than I have been with president Obama. I cannot wait to see this man leave the White House! Four more years of this man and we may not even have a country left recognizable by constitutional standards! It's obvious that Obama views the constitution with contempt, and is in violation of his oath of office.

According to Mark Levin, Wednesday, January 4th...

"The president now considers it a political virtue, that he's doing precisely what he criticized Bush for doing; making laws as he goes along. Now Obama says, 'I refuse to take no for an answer... When Congress refuses to act and as a result hurts our economy and puts people at risk, I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them.'

"Ladies and gentlemen, that is a forthright statement of a dictator."

Right. If Obama can't get what he wants legally, he'll ignore the Constitution and do it anyway, like the sovereign he believes he is.

Then there's this from Arnold Ahlert at the Canadian Free Press...

“When Congress refuses to act and as a result hurts our economy and puts people at risk, I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them.” — President Barack Obama

While I always identify the speaker of a quote, it is especially necessary this time. Why? Because if you remove the president’s name from the statement, it becomes really easy to imagine any number of other people making it. For example, plug in Chinese president Hu Jintao, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, or Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. Is there any doubt that any of these men would we more than willing to act, if they saw an “obligation” to do so, without the messy necessity of dealing with their respective legislative bodies?

Remember when, right after the 2010 election, a lot of the media were wondering if Barack Obama was going to “move to the center” or practice the politics of “triangulation” that got Bill Clinton re-elected? Such musings are a testament to the self-inflicted blindness that affects far too many people who get paid to see through such nonsense.

When this man was running in 2008, I implored Americans to understand that this country was divided by many issues, but first and foremost among those issues was a simple reality: there are those Americans who add up the plusses and minuses of the American experience and come to the conclusion that this country, warts and all, is still the best nation of earth — and the last, best hope of mankind. Then there are those Americans who engage in the same calculations and conclude that we are at best, just another country, and at worst, the nexus of all that is wrong in the world.

Bewitched by the monumental load known as hope and change, Americans put the latter group in charge of running the nation. They were so bewitched that even when the president, five days before the election, proclaimed he was only that far away from “fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” a majority of voters elected a man with the deadliest combination of inexperience, radical ideology and unbridled hubris this nation has ever endured. And just for good measure, they gave him an unassailable majority in Congress including, for a brief time, a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

[...]

One more year of this man thumbing his nose at the Constitution whenever it suits him will be damaging enough. Five more years? The 2012 election may come down to retiring Mr. Obama — or the Constitution.

That's what this blog has been about from the very beginning... questioning the impact of an Obama presidency on the future of the United States of America. The question repeated over and over these last three years has been exactly Ahlert's... In 2012, will we retire Mr. Obama, or the Constitution?

The truly amazing aspect of all this is Media's complete lack of coverage of Obama's repeated constitutional 'missteps' -- and I'm being generous. Media has outright failed in it's self-ascribed duty to be the watchdog of the American people against government tyranny. They have failed. All one needs to do to confirm this is check the ratings of MSNBC, CNN, NBC, CBS, and ABC News to understand that the American people have abandoned the Pravda networks, because, in their eyes, Mainstream Media has failed main street.

These failed propaganda outlets can mock Fox news all they want, but Fox's ratings are what they are because the American people, by and large, recognize that Fox is 'fair and balanced' in their reporting of the news-- much of their commentary shows are fair and balanced as well. The minority of news viewers who insist the Pravda networks are superior in balance and accuracy are deluded sufferers of wishful thinking... because the ratings say otherwise. People desire truth, and they'll invariably flock to wherever the greatest truth can be found.

The point, however, is that America is failing fast, and I don't mean economically or in global stature (although these things are occurring as well). America is failing constitutionally. If and when that happens she will cease to the nation of our birth... that Lady will have died. If and when that day ever comes, we may as well be living in Venezuela for all our votes and say in government will matter. We will be plantation slaves to our political masters.


Some more reading for you...

The Lawless Obama Regime
Here's What America Will Look Like If Obama Wins
This Power Grab's a Sign of Weakness
Obama Thumbs Nose at Constitution on 'Recess Appointments'
Cordray's Recess Appointment Sure Doesn't Look Constitutional to Me
Earning Their Hatred

That last piece perfectly illustrates the deranged support this president receives from the American Prava. ZERO constitutional justification is offered to legitimize Obama's actions in his appointments... the Senate was NOT in recess-- if you'll remember, the Senate did the same to Bush to prevent him from making recess appointments. Bush was not willing to thwart the Constitution, but Obama, acting like the king he believes he is, has no such qualms contravening what he views as a "charter of negative rights", the very 'charter' he swore to support and defend against all enemies, foreign or domestic. An oath he is in violation of, and not for the first time.

'Earning their hatred' appears to be the only reason for the article itself. The author's own reasoning-- to earn the heretofore unjustified hatred of his [the president's] detractors --is the only justification he offers, and the only justification leftists nationwide need to support their lawless president. The Left, it has been shown over and over and over again, does not care about constitutionality, or saving constitutional America. They care about 'fundamentally transforming America' into a welfare state, where everyone is dependent upon the state for its daily sustenance. That, readers, is not America... it's Cuba, its communist Russia... but it's certainly not America.

From Familial Pride to Disdain? In Under Two Years?

March 2010...





Yesterday, December 28, 2010...

WOLF: In Obama he trusts
Why our president fails

By Dr. Milton R. Wolf - The Washington Times

There’s something profoundly tragic about the failed presidency of Barack Obama. He was supposed to be a new kind of president, a man who embodied hope and would transcend petty politics and even race. Instead, we’re left with a downgraded America that is stagnating under the weight of its bloated government. As tragic as that alone is, even this is but a mere symptom of Mr. Obama’s larger fundamental failure: He simply does not trust the Americans who entrusted him with the presidency.

Most presidents, we believe, ascend to the Oval Office, but for the 44th president, the reverse seems true. Whatever majesty the White House can muster must rise to the grandiosity of Barack Obama. “We are the ones we have been waiting for,” said the man who writes autobiographies and later would claim to control the rise of the oceans.

As recently as this month, the food-stamp president of 13 million unemployed Americans declared himself the fourth-most-accomplished president in the history of the United States, eclipsing, in his own mind, President Reagan and even our nation’s father, George Washington. That in only three years. Barack the Magnificent won’t allow trivialities like $15 trillion debts or historic national credit downgrades dissuade him.
Mr. Obama may care deeply for America, but he believes in only one thing: Barack Obama. And you are not Barack Obama.

Where once the American flag was hailed universally as the ultimate symbol of freedom, we who live under it have slowly but surely surrendered our liberties to an insatiable government. Consider our decline in just the past two generations. Our grandfathers, who stood against evil and shed their blood to stop it, never would have tolerated their own government becoming so totalitarian that it would dictate to them what car they should drive, what (if any) health insurance they should choose or even what light bulb they should buy.
Has our generation been worthy of earlier Americans’ sacrifices? Or have we surrendered their hard-fought victories in return for false promises of a big-government utopia that never materializes? Look no further than the politicians we elect. We have chosen as our president a man who believes we are unworthy, not of the previous generations’ sacrifices, but rather unworthy of freedom itself.

The sum total of Mr. Obama’s political philosophy, the unifying theme of his presidency, amounts to this: You cannot be trusted to live as a free American.

President Obama’s first major legislative action, the failed $787 stimulus, revealed his fundamental distrust of free Americans. A president who actually trusts his people would stand aside as they freely chose how to invest their capital and their labor. Mr. Obama, on the other hand, simply doesn’t believe you are smart enough to know what’s best for you. He commandeered nearly $1 trillion dollars from the taxpayers and redirected it as he saw fit. That he squandered billions on crony boondoggles such as the Solyndra solar-panel company or laughable efforts to measure the malt-liquor habits of Buffalonians and the like is evidence merely of his incompetence. That he trusted only himself to allocate taxpayers’ money in the first place - even if he had had the capacity to do so brilliantly - is evidence of a much larger offense: This president distrusts his subjects.

Obamacare is a modern-day monument to government arrogance. So untrustworthy are Americans that they cannot be allowed to decide for themselves whether to purchase health insurance or, if so, how much. Likewise, physicians are too untrustworthy to provide you with care without first consulting the government’s “best practices” guidelines. Obamacare would solve both.

Untrustworthy bankers would become angelic under the restrictions of Dodd-Frank. Untrustworthy bloggers would fall in line under the Stop Online Piracy Act. Untrustworthy manufacturers would create the only jobs worth having under the dictates of the National Labor Relations Board. And untrustworthy energy consumers would act responsibly only under the restrictions of “cap and trade” or at least a dictatorial Environmental Protection Agency.

For statists like Mr. Obama, no matter how bloated our government has become, America is forever just one legislative act away from utopia, if only those untrustworthy Americans would just get in line. The man who ran on hope has instead embraced a tragic pessimism that views all free Americans with disdain as either incompetent rubes in need of his salvation or unrighteous villains in need of his rules. Either way, Mr. Obama embraces a command-and-control government and rejects American freedom.

Mr. Obama’s distrust of Americans is his fatal flaw, and Republicans would be wise to exploit it fully. The GOP should resist the temptation simply to become a cleverer version of autocrats who pull the same powerful levers of government but in different directions. Instead, they should become the party that embraces liberty.

If the 2012 election is between Republicans and Democrats or even between conservatives and liberals, Republicans might win. But if the election is instead between a bloated, ineffectual government that distrusts its subjects and Americans who still yearn to breathe free, Republicans will win. Only then will voters have a dramatic choice between a party that trusts Americans to be free and a party that does not.

Dr. Milton R. Wolf, a Washington Times columnist, is a radiologist and President Obama’s cousin. He blogs at miltonwolf.com.

 

Priceless Expression...

Below is an exchange between Alaskan Rep. Don Young (R), and historian Douglas Brinkley. The exchange itself is a prime example of the conceit and sense of self-importance many of us 'little folk' feel our representatives have of themselves. The following statement by Rep. Young is illustrative...

"I can call you anything I want while you sit in that chair... you just be quiet."

Nothing particularly priceless about this exchange, except, perhaps, Dr. Brinkley's fearless return. What's TRULY priceless is the expression on the cute blonde behind the congressman.



Of course, Liberals are not the sole possessors of arrogance and conceit-- the name 'Obama' comes quickly to mind...

...but the woman's eyes? Priceless!

You go, Dr. Brinkley! He DOESN'T own you! We DO pay that man's salary! He DOES work for us!

-----

Now. To clarify my own position. I'm in agreement with Rep. Young. We SHOULD be drilling in ANWR. Dr. Brinkley, however, had every right to stand up to Rep. Young's treatment of him.

Here's a link to a longer edit of the exchange, for those interested in context.

Finally Smelling the Coffee

Obama's most ardent supporter trumpeting a conservative position on the anointed one? Is hell freezing over?


In Addition...

From The National Journal:

Former Democratic Pollsters:
Obama Should Abandon Run for Second Term
by Michael Catalini

President Obama should abandon his run for a second term and turn over the reins of the Democratic Party to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, two one-time Democratic pollsters wrote in Monday's Wall Street Journal, which appeared online Sunday.

Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen argued that just as Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson decided not to pursue additional runs though they could have, Obama should do the same.

“He should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most important of the president's accomplishments. He should step aside for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,”Caddell and Schoen wrote.

Caddell, who worked as a pollster for President Jimmy Carter, and Schoen, who was a pollster for President Bill Clinton, argue that Obama will inevitably have to run a negative campaign in order to win reelection, the negative consequences of which will make it difficult for him to govern effectively.

“One year ago in these pages, we warned that if President Obama continued down his overly partisan road, the nation would be ‘guaranteed two years of political gridlock at a time when we can ill afford it.’ The result has been exactly as we predicted: stalemate in Washington, fights over the debt ceiling, an inability to tackle the debt and deficit, and paralysis exacerbating market turmoil and economic decline,” they write.

Caddell and Schoen say they write as “patriots and Democrats” who are concerned for their country, and they do not expect to play a direct role in any possible Clinton campaign.

This is not the first time Caddell and Schoen have made this argument. They wrote in November 2010 in The Washington Post that they “do not come to this conclusion lightly. But it is clear, we believe, that the president has largely lost the consent of the governed.”

The Most Dangerous Woman in America

[Link to the full article is to your right]

I remember an episode of Family Affair wherein Jody was struggling with the "new math." I remember that time and had difficulty too. I also took economics in high school-- a mandatory course requirement then. But nothing of what I learned then, seemingly, is understood today. The Keynesian Model is fundamentally flawed, yet everyone with access to policy-makers in Washington, who accepts the Keynesian Model, is granted an imprimatur-ish status in the development of our national fiscal policy.

Bad as our economy now is, it didn't get where it is without the guidance of both parties. Washington DC is more than just a seat of our federal government, it is also the seat of power of the Washington establishment, which has nothing to do with parties and everything to do with keeping the wheels turning in Washington no matter who is in power-- parties rise and fall, but the establishment is eternal, so to speak. Control may pass from one party to another, but the policy wonks never leave, and Washington today, no matter who controls the reins, is decidedly bent toward Liberalism in all its quirks, misconceptions and flaws. And nowhere, today, are those flaws and misconceptions more pronounced than in the managing of our economy:

Because the Keynesian Model is both a sham and a failure.

Anyone wishing to understand the way economies really work-- if government could only take its hand out of the mix --and how capitalism... unrestrained capitalism... could fix the mess we're in need only read The Case For Legalizing Capitalism by Kel Kelly. It's so simple even a neolithic-minded Liberal cave-dweller can understand it... and it's a free download.

But to the most dangerous woman in America, Christina Romer. From the article referenced above:

In a recent New York Times editorial entitled, “Dear Ben: It’s Time for Your Volcker Moment,” Romer publicly tries to goad Ben Bernanke into doing MORE to fight the great contraction.

It’s not enough that Mr. Bernanke has expanded the money supply by an amount never before seen in the history of the world. It’s not enough that he’s nearly exhausted every policy tool at his disposal. It’s not enough that global confidence in the dollar is fading rapidly.

Romer wants Bernanke to take things to the next level.

Say one thing for the Keynesian deranged, they are consistent... consistently wrong.. and unable to fight the urge to double down. If it were Christina's own money and livelihood I'd say let her hit rock bottom, then she can seek help from a gambler anonymous support group. But it's our livelihood she and the rest of her liberal 'cadre of the deranged' are playing with.

In her editorial, Romer draws comparisons to past economic difficulties and expresses admiration for those who employed extreme tactics to deal with them. She praises FDR for abandoning the gold standard and allowing the dollar to depreciate.

She also erroneously recounts economic history, suggesting that Roosevelt’s actions led to “the most impressive [economic] swing the country has ever seen from horrible contraction to rapid growth.”

Swing? That’s a bit revisionist. The Great Depression languished for years. And years. Perhaps if we’re speaking in terms of a geological timeline in which millions of years are a drop in the bucket, the recovery could be characterized as a rapid ‘swing’.

Anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty understands that the Great Depression lasted as long as it did BECAUSE of FDR and government interference in the economy. Now history is in the process of repeating, unrecognized by the those who esteem themselves as the best and the brightest, and now advising the Obama administration on how best to solve our debt crisis. In effect, doubling down on stupid.

In Romer’s world, paper is wealth. And hey, why should she believe anything else? She’s been in academia and politics for her entire life. She’s never actually had to DO anything and has been free to live inside a consequence-free Keynesian bubble throughout her entire career.

The scary thing, though, is that this woman has VIP access to the halls of power in Washington DC. She advises the decision makers who set policies affecting hundreds of millions… even billions of people. And she has no clue how the world actually works. This is incredibly destructive for the rest of us.

This blog has, from the very beginning been an attempt to fight, as meagerly as we knew how, what we knew was coming from the moment we learned Obama had won the White House. But I've come to learn a thing or two in the last three years... specifically, that people tend more often to cling to their tropes and paradigms than allow them to be modified or altogether cast aside in favor of clearer, truer understandings. If anything, they double down on stupid. And when it's Washington that does it, we all suffer.

You can only blame your predecessor for so long. You can only continue down a failing path for so long before the economy wrecks peoples lives and those people begin to get resentful.

I honestly don't see how Obama could possibly get reelected, but stranger things have happened and, I've come to understand, people tend to get the kind of leaders they deserve. Now, as to what that says about the American people, I'll leave that to someone else. Suffice it to say, however, that the longer we allow the genuinely uneducated and 'ignorant-to-real-world-truths' individuals decide economic policy (among other things) we deserve whatever they cram down our throats.

After all, we allowed them to wipe their collective asses with the Constitution, so we shouldn't be surprised that our country is now in a world of hurt; the kind from which there is no real avoiding the coming shit-storm of consequences. It won't matter if a Republican wins next November, that shit-storm is coming regardless-- the only caveat being, how long that storm will last compared to the policies currently administered by the Obama White House.

Remember, Remember, the Fifth of November...

Sovereign Man
Notes from the Field

Date: November 4, 2011
Reporting From: Taipei, Taiwan


Late in the evening on November 4, 1605, an English soldier named Guy Fawkes took up his position deep in the cellars beneath the House of Lords in London's Westminster Palace. He was armed with 36 barrels of gunpowder and intended to blow up the building, taking King James and most Members of Parliament with it.

Fawkes was discovered hours later, just after midnight on the 5th. He was captured, interrogated, and tortured, ultimately revealing details of his co-conspirators in what became known as the Gunpowder Plot.

History never let it go. To this day, the 5th of November is still commemorated, officially as a celebration of the government's triumph over its domestic enemies.

[As an etymological note, the word 'guy' is actually derived from Guy Fawkes; it was originally intended as a term of derision but by the 20th century evolved to its current meaning of any male.]

As you can imagine, the aftermath of the Gunpowder Plot was anything but comfortable in England. The country became an all-out police state-- arrests, interrogations, and inquisitions were all commonplace as the government attempted to smoke out its enemies.

Four centuries later, not much has changed.

Earlier this week, the federal government arrested a quartet of elderly men as old as 73 on terrorism charges. Like Fawkes, they are charged with plotting attacks on politicians and government buildings.

US Attorney Sally Quillan Yates said that the case is a reminder that "we must also remain vigilant in protecting our country from citizens within our own borders who threaten our safety and security."

In a COMPLETELY UNRELATED MATTER (naturally), major hotel chains in the United States began rolling out the 'If you see something, say something' Homeland Security ads across all of their properties.

As of yesterday, US-based Marriott, Sheraton, Holiday Inn, and Hilton hotels will subject their guests to short videos on the hotel welcome monitors. In this particular video, Johnny DoGood calls the police because he sees... wait for it... a man standing next to a taxi.

Meanwhile, Tennessee recently became the first to implement Homeland Security's VIPR program statewide, essentially placing ass-grabbing TSA agents at various checkpoints along the state's freeways.

And in just two-months' time, you can look forward to the FBI rolling out a nationwide facial recognition program. This, after FBI Director Robert Mueller announced that the bureau would make greater use of rules which allow agents to surveil Americans, even if they have absolutely no ties to terrorism.

This police state is the ultimate slippery slope. Once you start fondling people at airports, you might as well take over the train stations... at which point you might as well do the bus stations too. And highways. Shopping malls. Sports stadiums. Grocery stores. And of course, schools... can't forget the kids.

This only gets worse with time. Soon, any semblance of civil liberty has succumbed to Lingchi, the Chinese torture of 'death by a thousand cuts'.

It's understandable that people are angry and demanding change. Guy Fawkes and his co-conspirators thought they could change the system through violence. They were wrong.

And even if violent revolution does create change, it usually works out poorly. Russia got Lenin and Stalin after their revolution, France got Robespierre's Reign of Terror... followed by Napoleon's military dictatorship.

Others are deluded into thinking they can change the system in the voting booth... and with one year to go until the 2012 showdown, there are certainly a lot of people pinning their hopes on this idea. Most forget how surprised they are when, in election after election, their guy turns out to be just as bad as the old guy.

George Carlin once said, "When I hear a person talking about political solutions, I know I am not listening to a serious person." He was right. Politics creates problems, not solutions.

In fact, as Rousseau outlined in his Social Contract, the very nature of government requires that people sacrifice some personal freedoms in exchange for certain conveniences. But more and more, the costs in freedom are rising, and the conveniences become rather... inconvenient.

Truthfully, elections are simply clever parlor tricks anyhow, designed to make people think they are in control. They're not. The only thing we can actually control is what we do ourselves.

Governments are like primitive cannibals feasting on a great treasure trove of sheeple. You can't force them out, and you can't vote them out. But you can sure as hell starve them out. When enough people pick up and leave, essentially voting with their feet, it accelerates the system crash.

This is the only way to truly change the system.






Simon Black
Senior Editor, SovereignMan.com

-----------------


An interesting perspective. But if elections are merely shams... why bother going to polls?

I think you all know that answer to that one. But the point is we ARE, more and more each day, evolving into a police state. And anyone who says it's for the better, is sadly deluded.

Received In Email: Populism as a Negative

I receive in email every few days or so articles from the Patriot Post. This one, I believe, is a must read, and so I've posted it here in full, including the pictures. You can find the original here, and subscribe yourself. The original article has numerous links which I did not add here. Check out the original if you're interested.

One particular comment at the site is posted below this article, and it speaks to what a lot of us on the right are thinking... "why bother?"




Populist Socialism on the Rise
The "99 Percent" are really the "35 Percent" but their cadres are growing

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If 'Thou shalt not covet' and 'Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free."

--John Adams, 1787

The populist message of the Occupy Movement, the agelessly adolescent class warriors who make up Barack Hussein Obama's Red October Uprising, now has the support of some 35 percent of Americans, mostly urbanites.

The Occupiers have now infested cities from coast to coast, including Oakland, Seattle, Denver, Austin, Chicago, Atlanta, Baltimore, New York, and Boston. Their mantra is simple (by necessity): "We are the 99 Percent, and we're all victims of the 1 Percent." By any objective standard, the 99 Percent are not the brightest bunch, and they really represent the roughly 20 percent of Americans who are irrevocably dependent upon government subsides, and pay no income tax. Thus, this 20 percent has no vested interest in the cost of government and is predisposed to vote for the redistribution of others' incomes rather than work for their own. The underlying assumption is that it's easier to confiscate wealth than create it.

This "entitled" 20 percent combines with the 10 percent of American labor who are collectivists and another 5 percent who are perpetual malcontents to thus form Barack Hussein Obama's entrenched socialist constituency of Useful Idiots.

The intellectually challenged Occupy morons have built their movement around the errant assertion that if the assets of the 1 Percent were entirely redistributed, everyone would live happily ever after. Unfortunately, what the 35 Percenters really want, "redistributive justice" as Obama calls it, would require the redistribution of income from the other 65 percent of Americans families who live on earned income, so that everyone could be equally impoverished.

Of course, there's a problem with liquidating the assets of the 1 percent (comprised of more celebs and pro athletes than Wall Street bankers), or even the top 25 percent of the so-called rich: Most of their assets are on paper, and the rest of that "wealth" is in the form of small businesses and real property that support the jobs of tens of millions of Americans who actually work for a living -- and take pride in their occupations.

Thus, liquidation would result in the collapse of the entire economy, leaving everyone under the same statist tyranny as Obama's 35 Percenters -- equally miserable, equally dependent upon the government, and that much closer to Obama's mandate to implement Democratic Socialism.

Fact is, socialist economies always fail. In the inimitable words of former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, "Socialist governments ... always run out of other people's money. They then start to nationalize everything."

Of course, socialists never let reality intrude upon their classist fantasies of universal equality and happiness. Nineteenth-century historian Alexis de Tocqueville once observed, "Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."

If you have any doubt about the socialist motives of the Occupy Movement, consider this proclamation from my daily American Communist Party communiqué (yes, I subscribe to certain leftist publications, so, yes, I know my enemy): "We Are the 99%! The AFL-CIO has taken another step to embrace the Occupy Movement by creating their own We Are the 99% website. Also, CPUSA Chair Sam Webb has an article on the movement at the People's World: 'Occupy: embrace the new, build the movement.'"

Next, I suggest you review the official list of Occupy supporters, including Marxists, Nationalists, Fascists and even Islamists. What a sorry lot for a supporting cast.

Given all this, it's not surprising that the Occupiers' highest-profile support emanates from Obama himself, who says, "People are frustrated and the [Occupy] protesters are giving voice to a more broad-based frustration about how our financial system works. ... I think it expresses the frustrations that the American people feel. ... The American people understand that not everybody's been following the rules. These days, a lot of folks doing the right thing are not rewarded. A lot of folks who are not doing the right thing are rewarded."

As to the Occupy Movement's momentum, Obama says their agenda "will express itself until 2012 and beyond until people feel they are getting back to old-fashioned American values. That's going to express itself politically in 2012 and beyond."

By "old-fashioned" we suspect he's merely re-warming some propaganda from one of the most notable of 20th-century socialists, that inheritance welfare liberal Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It was FDR, after all, who channeled Karl Marx when he proclaimed, "Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle."

Roosevelt issued a collectivist "bill of rights" in which he said that the government should ensure "the right to a useful and remunerative job ... the right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation ... the right of every family to a decent home ... the right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health ... the right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age ... the right to a good education."

For his part, Obama has been clear in his collectivist rhetoric: "[T]he wealthiest Americans have made out like bandits. ... It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Our nation is at a critical juncture, and the adversaries of Liberty are well funded. However, a great national debate about the proper role of government is underway. The Patriot Post, since its inception, has been plowing the fields and sowing the seed for this Great Awakening. Our goal is to ensure that the movement remains, first and foremost, about the restoration of constitutional integrity, and to support its momentum.

----

In Comments, from SubVet....

Who is John Galt?

Hopefully, there are many of us in the "Contributing Class" who are making preparations to simply walk away from this expanding nonsense.

The idea of a simple life up in the mountains somewhere is becoming more appealing as each day goes by. Why should I bother to work so hard to earn fiat currency that the government takes most of to redistribute to those that choose to do nothing?

Besides, the coming collapse is inevitable at this point and why not start learning how to exist comfortably in what, as the many dystopian novels of the near-future are depicting, is nearly certain to be realized?

Why not indeed?

Because despite what the Left wants us to believe, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

A Question to Consider

What right does a leech have to the life blood of another creature?

Imagine

"Our great democracies still tend to think that a stupid man is more likely to be honest than a clever man." ~ Bertrand Russell

Over at fellow blogger Marshall Art's place, a comment thread is steadily growing over what would seem to most reasonable, logical people to be a logical, common sense measure that would insure only eligible, legally registered voters would, in fact, be able to vote in elections.

Art (and I agree) has posited that a simple and nearly effortless requirement of presenting a legal photo ID would help prevent voter fraud.

Apparently, some of Art's resident Liberal's argument against this is a rather illogical supposition that the requirement of Photo ID's would somehow intimidate and/or discourage those legal voters who want to vote from doing so.

I say "apparently" because the whole thing seems rather cut and dried to me. I fail to see any logic in allowing just anyone who wants to show up and vote to do so without asking any proof beyond their word, that they are legally registered and eligible.

Incidentally, recently I noticed a television ad for Wal-Mart which states that shoppers are no longer required to show proof that some other retail outlet in town is offering items at lower prices than Walmart in order to get Wal-Mart to "match the price". Formerly, if a shopper wanted Wal-Mart to match the price of some other retail outlet, they were required to bring in an advertisement which proved the other outlet was indeed selling the item at a lower price.

Now, all they have to do is state that the item is being offered at a lower price than Wal-Mart to get a lower price.

No proof is required.

Apparently, Wal-Mart doesn't consider the possibility that some unscrupulous shoppers might actually lie about lower prices just to get a lower price from Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart employees are expected to simply take the shopper's word for it. If one doesn't see a potential disaster in that practice, one would have to be incredibly naive.

This is the exact same reason that not requiring proof of eligibility to vote is a horrifically bad idea.

Perhaps, in the 1950's we could be safe in assuming we could trust someone's word, but that era has long since passed.

Admittedly, it's unfortunate that we have regressed to the point that we can no longer trust our neighbors, and I wish it were not so, but the fact is, we can't. And, that is why we need to require proof of eligibility.

My own resident Liberal, Jim, according to his comments, doesn't seem to believe any ineligible people would even consider trying to commit voter fraud. I find this thinking naive at best, and dangerous at worst. The idea that you can trust people, especially people who have a vested interest in pivotal issues that directly affect election outcomes, to refrain from attempting voter fraud, is unbelievably naive.

So, I offer this example of why requiring proof of voter eligibility is crucial to preventing voter fraud:

Hey, we're eligible. I promise!

Imagine I'm an illegal alien, and imagine I have been following the "illegal immigration debate" and I want full amnesty for my 1,000 or so brothers, sisters, mothers, mothers-in-law, fathers, fathers-in-law, uncles, aunts, cousins, and my friends and their friends so they can enter this country and take advantage of all those free hand-outs that the legal U.S. Citizens pay for with their taxes extracted from their hard earned money.

And, imagine me (as an illegal alien) being able to vote for every politician who has promised to grant amnesty to anyone who wants to immigrate to this country regardless of criminal history and/or highly contagious medical conditions, etc, because there is no way to ascertain whether or not I am legally eligible to vote.

So now, with no requirement to insure ineligible people don't vote, I and my 1000's of illegal alien relatives and friends, who share the same vested interest in the outcome of the election as I do, have effectively defeated the candidate who would have enforced the immigration laws, and installed a pro-illegal alien candidate in office.

Is this what the Liberals really want for our country?

It is my opinion that unbridled and unchecked amnesty for illegal aliens would quickly cause the degeneration of this country into third world status. Not to mention the drug cartels and Islamic Jihad terrorists flowing unstopped into our country, and wreaking their own brand of havoc.

All because of simply removing all requirements to show proof of eligibility to vote.

Can anyone think of an easier way to accomplish this task?

On Second Thought... I Like Robin Hood's Example

He stole from the rich and gave to the poor, right? In a sense, true... but in actuality Robin Hood and his band of merry men stole from corrupt government officials and clergy. which makes me question, yet again, the quality of education in this country. The Occupy Wall Street crowd are calling for a 'Robin Hood Tax,' on bankers, financiers, and the über rich; i.e.,  Capitalists, and, believe it or not, the Pope himself is throwing his weight behind that call.

Obviously then the biggest problem with all this is that the OWS crowd AND the pope have it all wrong. Robin Hood didn't steal from capitalists... he didn't steal from crofters, brewers, millers, etc. He stole from nobility which, you might as well say, governed the country, and that rather poorly.

If you steal from capitalists, the capitalists will simply hide their monies and refuse to invest in more innovation, and decide to just sit on what they have. Why be a producer if the government is simply going to steal it?

The lack of critical thought in leftist media and the OWS, in this regard, is astounding. OWS has misplaced their ire, and leftist media (government controlled) are egging them on, anything to divert attention to the truth, that it is government which is to blame for our present woes. OWS and has fallen over its own ignorance and can't get up. On top of which economic ignoramuses like our current president and his 'economic team,' have bungled what was already a fragile economy to begin with. OWS should be protesting in front of the White House and Congress... not Wall Street. But then OWS doesn't want accountability in government, they want handouts, and they want Capitalists to fess up with their fruit of their labor. Wall Street didn't create these 'bubbles'... government-- namely, the Fed --did.

Do you want to solve the problem of market 'bubbles' and instability? I can assure, the president is incapable of doing it, no matter how many bills he threatens and cajoles republicans to pass-- democrats don't want his bill either! But do you really want to solve the problem of market bubbles and instability? How about these suggestions just for starters...

• Eliminate the Fed. It is because of the Fed that bubbles exist at all
• Return to some sort of standard for the dollar. Yes, it'll hurt for a while, but before Nixon took us off the gold standard our currency was stable
• Remove as much regulation and government oversight as possible on business. We need to see lawmakers seizing on the floor of congress, and retching on their fine silk suits before saying 'enough is enough'
• Begin tapping and extracting our own resources of oil and natural gas; this will create hundreds of thousands of jobs
• Eliminate the death tax
• Bring corporate taxes down to 10-15%
• Reduce the capital gains tax to zero for a period of years

These alone won't get us out of the mess we're in, anytime soon. It's going to get much worse before it gets better no matter how deep we cut government out of free enterprise, and the taxpayer's wallets, but at least this way there is hope of saving the country. What I mean by that is, should America lose it's reserve currency status, America will lose more than government, or any number of empty political promises can ever hope to correct. America, as a preeminent nation, as a leader in the world, will be relegated to 2nd class nation.

America will cease to be great if we lose our reserve currency status. Think things are tough now? Prices on just about everything will increase 25-40%, almost overnight. Without the ability to continue to print money to buy ourselves out of crises after crises (as we're doing now), the cost of just about everything will skyrocket. You think there's unrest now? Imagine what will happen when average Americans have to choose between eating and paying their mortgage, or basic utilities, or gas for their vehicles. Riots on Wall Street? No, riots on Main Street.

If America loses it's reserve currency status, there will be a run on the banks. And the government, in an effort to save what it can will close all markets, and banks. Pensions and social security checks will likely stop as well. What happens when the government food stamp program stops? Riots on Main Street? No, riots on YOUR street. Desperate people resorting to desperate acts. And law enforcement unable to be everywhere at once. Government may even impose martial law. Think it can't happen? You're a fool if you think so.

In light of this, therefore, I propose a Robin Hood Tax on the American government... by kicking it's sorry ass out of the economy altogether (where it has no business being), and forcing it (at gunpoint if necessary) to live within its means. by doing this we just may... may, mind you... save this country from economic destruction in the process, and save untold lives.

It's time for another revolution in this country. Everyone else seems to be throwing their own 'tea parties'... perhaps it's time we had a real tea party of our own, here and now, before our government literally kills tens of thousands of Americans through their reckless fiscal policies that will, if left unchecked, doom thousands of Americans to the loss of the very basic of services; without which most Americans wouldn't know how to survive.

Don't let the government kill you! Join Robin's merry band of men today and together we can bring down the evil Price John (government) and that dastardly Sheriff of Nottingham (the Fed). By doing so we just may be able to save the kingdom for our long absent King Richard....... wherever and whoever he turns out to be.

NATO & Obama: Making the Middleast LESS Safe

While Dem's, and the Left in general, boast and thump their chests over Obama's "victory" in Libya, the new provisionary government is implementing Sharia Law. We didn't know who the rebels were before we became their partner in the killing of Muammar Gaddafi, but we do now. This wasn't Saddam Hussein receiving his just punishment after a lengthy and fair (as fair as one could expect) trial. No. This was the former leader of the nation gunned down in the street. Shades of Nicolai Ceausescu anyone? But Gaddafi wasn't even accorded the show trial Ceausescu was.

Obama. I hate to say it (though I've said it over and over again), is the worst excuse for a U.S. President in living memory-- not even Carter was this bad. Yet in spite of this, almost everyone on the Left is touting his foreign policy successes... but what successes? Apologizing to the world, with every official visit to every rogue or friendly nation he arrogantly sets foot in, for being the object of their hatred and despisement. These nations, according to Obama, some run by dictators, are better in his eyes than the nation he purports to lead. He leads from behind! we've heard it said, but what kind of victory did he win in Libya, beside a cowardly one?

In short, what Obama has achieved in 'leading from behind' in Libya is the advancement of Sharia law on the world stage. Thank you, Mr. President.Welcome, women of Libya, to the 9th century.

Our president has publicly snubbed, humiliated, and thrown under the bus, our greatest ally in the middle east; namely, Israel. Yet he has coddled, befriended, and apologized to the Arab nations, Israel's enemies. And this new turn of events in Libya? the implementation of Sharia? This makes the middle east less safe. Especially Israel. Where have all the shoulder fired missiles gone to? Some have made their way to Gaza. How? The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Libya borders Egypt, Egypt borders Gaza, Gaza fires missiles into Israel on a daily basis.

Tunis has fallen... revolution... who knows what form of government will eventually be installed.

Egypt has fallen... revolution... we know, at least, that the Muslim Brotherhood is more sympathetic to Sharia, than to anything else. The Muslim Brotherhood has already made menacing overtures toward Israel, and is supplying Gaza.

Libya has fallen... Civil War... we don't even know who the rebels are, but we do know they're implementing elements of Sharia.

All of this makes the middle east less safe (despite these players being African nations). Syria is experiencing unrest. As is Jordan. Yemen. Iraq. Algeria. While there is nothing to say these nations would not have seen turmoil, revolution, and civil war had Obama been a stronger leader, but neither is there any evidence to suggest his weakness didn't embolden these nations... Obama's speech in Cairo was a fine example of appeasement, abasement, acquiescence... and incitement. He said to Mubarak: you must leave! To Gaddafi: you must go! Yet nothing to Syria's Hafez al-Assad. He had the nerve to chastise Israel, but hadn't the stones to give Syria the same.

He's a coward. And the poorest excuse for a president in American history. November 6, 2012 can't come soon enough.

Why Liberalism Must Be Defeated in the Classroom

...ONE reason, at least... Economics.

"Mainstream economists and the financial press are usually Keynesian. This means that they like to hide the true cause of economic problems. Their explanations, therefore, are ones that try to show how the tail can wag the dog. But these fallacious explanations have been around so long and are so widely taught that most people who do not know real economics -- including most of these same Keynesians -- easily believe these improbable explanations."

Kel Kelly,
Author of, The Case for Legalizing Capitalism
                      [downloadable as a PDF file]

Because most Americans under 35 don't understand the basics of economics-- it's ignorance by design. Education, therefore, needs to be reformed and true sciences taught. Ask yourself why the U.S. is ranked 25th in Mathematics world-wide, and 17th in Science.(December 2010)

Here's a question to consider: keeping with the theme of one of my more recent posts, Is it within a fascist state's best interest to keep it's populace ignorant of how the world really works?

I believe that answer is, Yes. Why else has this nation spent so much time and money rearing generations of poorly educated children? Children grow into taxpayers, and an ignorant tax-base is more easily managed than an enlightened one.

How is the hubris of today's educators any different than Galileo's persecutors? Aside from the religious angle? None whatsoever. Today's educators are entrenched in philosophies that, for the most part, are doing more harm than good. Which is why liberalism- for that is the culprit in the sad state of enlightenment in this country -must be defeated in the classroom first, if we're ever to defeat it in the public square.

The answer to all this mayhem is a better educated populace, and less interference in public management by government. In short: we need to kill the fascist state, and restore the republic. When 47% of America pays no personal income tax, when government expects it's populace to accept the ridiculous notion that increased spending will reduce deficits... and half the population believes it! ...something is terribly wrong in academia.

Remember that final scene in Animal Farm? We're already there.

It's time to drag the pigs away from the table, and make bacon.

Laissez Faire ... there's your jobs bills, folks.

It's called free enterprise...

Capitalism made legal once more.

Learning to Levitate Above a World of Bad Ideas

"These right-wingers hate government so much," bellowed the Rev. Sharpton, "that they don't want any government at all!"

Our mother smirked and jabbed an accusing finger at us. We'd reluctantly sat at the dinner table, something we usually try to avoid during our visits because MSNBC is always blaring in our mother's household at dinnertime.

We hadn't realized that right-wingers had become quite so anarchist as the Rev. Sharpton had just declared.

The Rev. Al had just gotten through talking to Barney Frank about what Americans really want from their government.

"They want jobs," he said. "The want infrastructure. They want government programs."

Barney Frank enthusiastically agreed. I'm sure the millions upon millions viewing the exchange that evening agreed as well. Add to that another hundred million more throughout the land...

The thrust is that when all else fails, we just need the government to do the spending. The government knows best where to invest. The government is wiser and more far-seeing than the fickle markets. Just ask the Soviets!

Mind you, the government has no money of its own...only that which it takes, on pain of imprisonment, from its subjects who make their money in the private sector.

The government has no way of measuring demand or success. Its motives are political, not market-driven. The very polls and votes that inform it come from a demos eager to decide how other peoples' money ought to be spent....And that decision is usually for the "rich" to pay for everyone else.

In today's feature article, we call upon the spirit of Murray N. Rothbard to provide an explanation of why the public sector should not be considered on equal footing with the private sector.


Gary Gibson, Whiskey & Gunpowder
October 5, 2011


We have heard a great deal of the “public sector,” and solemn discussions abound through the land on whether or not the public sector should be increased vis-a-vis the “private sector.” The very terminology is redolent of pure science, and indeed, it emerges from the supposedly scientific, if rather grubby, world of “national income statistics.” But the concept is hardly wertfrei; in fact, it is fraught with grave and questionable implications.

In the first place, we may ask, “public sector” of what? Of something called the “national product.” But note the hidden assumptions: that the national product is something like a pie, consisting of several “sectors,” and that these sectors, public and private alike, are added to make the product of the economy as a whole. In this way, the assumption is smuggled into the analysis that the public and private sectors are equally productive, equally important and on an equal footing altogether, and that “our” deciding on the proportions of public to private sector is about as innocuous as any individual’s decision on whether to eat cake or ice cream. The State is considered to be an amiable service agency, somewhat akin to the corner grocer, or rather, to the neighborhood lodge, in which “we” get together to decide how much “our government” should do for (or to) us. Even those neoclassical economists who tend to favor the free market and free society often regard the State as a generally inefficient, but still amiable, organ of social service, mechanically registering “our” values and decisions.

One would not think it difficult for scholars and laymen alike to grasp the fact that government is not like the Rotarians or the Elks, that it differs profoundly from all other organs and institutions in society, namely, that it lives and acquires its revenues by coercion and not by voluntary payment. The late Joseph Schumpeter was never more astute than when he wrote, “The theory which construes taxes on the analogy of club dues or of the purchase of the services of, say, a doctor only proves how far removed this part of the social sciences is from scientific habits of mind.”

Apart from the public sector, what constitutes the productivity of the “private sector” of the economy? The productivity of the private sector does not stem from the fact that people are rushing around doing “something,” anything, with their resources; it consists in the fact that they are using these resources to satisfy the needs and desires of the consumers. Businessmen and other producers direct their energies, on the free market, to producing those products that will be most rewarded by the consumers, and the sale of these products may, therefore, roughly “measure” the importance that the consumers place upon them. If millions of people bend their energies to producing horses-and-buggies, they will, in this day and age, not be able to sell them, and hence, the productivity of their output will be virtually zero. On the other hand, if a few million dollars are spent in a given year on Product X, then statisticians may well judge that these millions constitute the productive output of the X-part of the “private sector” of the economy.

One of the most important features of our economic resources is their scarcity: land, labor and capital-goods factors are all scarce, and may all be put to various possible uses. The free market uses them “productively” because the producers are guided, on the market, to produce what the consumers most need: automobiles, for example, rather than buggies. Therefore, while the statistics of the total output of the private sector seem to be a mere adding of numbers, or counting units of output, the measures of output actually involve the important qualitative decision of considering as “product” what the consumers are willing to buy. A million automobiles, sold on the market, are productive because the consumers so considered them; a million buggies, remaining unsold, would not have been “product” because the consumers would have passed them by.

Suppose now that into this idyll of free exchange enters the long arm of government. The government, for some reasons of its own, decides to ban automobiles altogether (perhaps because the many tailfins offend the aesthetic sensibilities of the rulers) and to compel the auto companies to produce the equivalent in buggies instead. Under such a strict regimen, the consumers would be, in a sense, compelled to purchase buggies, because no cars would be permitted. However, in this case, the statistician would surely be purblind if he blithely and simply recorded the buggies as being just as “productive” as the previous automobiles. To call them equally productive would be a mockery; in fact, given plausible conditions, the “national product” totals might not even show a statistical decline, when they had actually fallen drastically.

And yet the highly touted “public sector” is in even worse straits than the buggies of our hypothetical example. For most of the resources consumed by the maw of government have not even been seen, much less used, by the consumers, who were at least allowed to ride in their buggies. In the private sector, a firm’s productivity is gauged by how much the consumers voluntarily spend on its product. But in the public sector, the government’s “productivity” is measured — mirabile dictu — by how much it spends! Early in their construction of national-product statistics, the statisticians were confronted with the fact that the government, unique among individuals and firms, could not have its activities gauged by the voluntary payments of the public — because there were little or none of such payments. Assuming, without any proof, that government must be as productive as anything else, they then settled upon its expenditures as a gauge of its productivity. In this way, not only are government expenditures just as useful as private, but all the government needs to do in order to increase its “productivity” is to add a large chunk to its bureaucracy. Hire more bureaucrats and see the productivity of the public sector rise! Here, indeed, is an easy and happy form of social magic for our bemused citizens.

The truth is exactly the reverse of the common assumptions. Far from adding cozily to the private sector, the public sector can only feed off the private sector; it necessarily lives parasitically upon the private economy. But this means that the productive resources of society — far from satisfying the wants of consumers — are now directed, by compulsion, away from these wants and needs. The consumers are deliberately thwarted, and the resources of the economy diverted from them to those activities desired by the parasitic bureaucracy and politicians. In many cases, the private consumers obtain nothing at all, except perhaps propaganda beamed to them at their own expense. In other cases, the consumers receive something far down on their list of priorities — like the buggies of our example. In either case, it becomes evident that the “public sector” is actually anti-productive — that it subtracts from, rather than adds to, the private sector of the economy. For the public sector lives by continuous attack on the very criterion that is used to gauge productivity: the voluntary purchases of consumers.

We may gauge the fiscal impact of government on the private sector by subtracting government expenditures from the national product. For government payments to its own bureaucracy are hardly additions to production; and government absorption of economic resources takes them out of the productive sphere. This gauge, of course, is only fiscal; it does not begin to measure the anti-productive impact of various government regulations, which cripple production and exchange in other ways than absorbing resources. It also does not dispose of numerous other fallacies of the national product statistics. But at least it removes such common myths as the idea that the productive output of the American economy increased during World War II. Subtract the government deficit instead of add it, and we see that the real productivity of the economy declined, as we would rationally expect during a war.

But how is it that only government agencies clamor for more money and denounce the citizens for reluctance to supply more? Why do we never have the private-enterprise equivalents of traffic jams (which occur on government streets), mismanaged schools, water shortages and so on? The reason is that private firms acquire the money that they deserve from two sources: voluntary payment for the services by consumers, and voluntary investment by investors in expectation of consumer demand.

If there is an increased demand for a privately owned good, consumers pay more for the product, and investors invest more in its supply, thus, “clearing the market” to everyone’s satisfaction. If there is an increased demand for a publicly owned good (water, streets, subway and so on), all we hear is annoyance at the consumer for wasting precious resources, coupled with annoyance at the taxpayer for balking at a higher tax load.

Enterprise makes it its business to court the consumer and to satisfy his most urgent demands; government agencies denounce the consumer as a troublesome user of their resources. Only a government, for example, would look fondly upon the prohibition of private cars as a “solution” for the problem of congested streets. Government’s numerous “free” services, moreover, create permanent excess demand over supply and therefore permanent “shortages” of the product. Government, in short, acquiring its revenue by coerced confiscation rather than by voluntary investment and consumption, is not and cannot be run like a business. Its inherent gross inefficiencies, the impossibility for it to clear the market, will insure its being a mare’s nest of trouble on the economic scene.

In former times, the inherent mismanagement of government was generally considered a good argument for keeping as many things as possible out of government hands. After all, when one has invested in a losing proposition, one tries to refrain from pouring good money after bad.

Most economists have two basic arguments on behalf of the public sector, which we may only consider very briefly here. One is the problem of “external benefits.” A and B often benefit, it is held, if they can force C into doing something. Much can be said in criticism of this doctrine, but suffice it to say here that any argument proclaiming the right and goodness of, say, three neighbors, who yearn to form a string quartet, forcing a fourth neighbor at bayonet point to learn and play the viola, is hardly deserving of sober comment.

The second argument is more substantial: Stripped of technical jargon, it states that some essential services simply cannot be supplied by the private sphere, and that, therefore, government supply of these services is necessary. And yet every single one of the services supplied by government has been, in the past, successfully furnished by private enterprise. The bland assertion that private citizens cannot possibly supply these goods is never bolstered, in the works of these economists, by any proof whatsoever. How is it, for example, that economists, so often given to pragmatic or utilitarian solutions, do not call for social “experiments” in this direction? Why must political experiments always be in the direction of more government? Why not give the free market a county or even a state or two, and see what it can accomplish?


Regards,

Murray N. Rothbard

We're All fascists Now

How Fascism Kills the American Dream
Whiskey & Gunpowder
October 7, 2011


President Barack "Infrastructure Jobs" Obama is mad as hell. Says the prez...

"I think it's fair to say that I have gone out of my way in every instance -- sometimes at my own political peril and to the frustration of Democrats -- to work with Republicans to find common ground to move this country forward.

"Each time, what we've seen is games-playing, a preference to try to score political points, rather than actually get something done on the part of the other side."

According to The Associated Press, President Obama "challenged Republicans...to explain to the American people why they oppose his plan to create jobs and rebuild U.S. highways, bridges and schools as an ‘insurance policy' against a return to recession."
Ahem. Allow us to quote our friend Lew Rockwell by way of answering...

"There was stimulus one and stimulus two, both of which are so discredited that stimulus three will have to adopt a new name. Let's call it the American Jobs Act.

"With a prime-time speech, Obama argued in favor of this program with some of the most asinine economic analysis I've ever heard. He mused about how is it that people are unemployed at a time when schools, bridges and infrastructure need repairing. He ordered that supply and demand come together to match up needed work with jobs.

"Hello? The schools, bridges and infrastructure that Obama refers to are all built and maintained by the state. That's why they are falling apart. And the reason that people don't have jobs is because the state has made it too expensive to hire them. It's not complicated. To sit around and dream of other scenarios is no different from wishing that water flowed uphill or that rocks would float in the air. It amounts to a denial of reality.

"Still, Obama went on, invoking the old fascistic longing for national greatness. ‘Building a world-class transportation system,' he said, ‘is part of what made us an economic superpower.' Then he asked, ‘We're going to sit back and watch China build newer airports and faster railroads?"

"Well, the answer to that question is yes. And you know what? It doesn't hurt a single American for a person in China to travel on a faster railroad than we do. To claim otherwise is an incitement to nationalist hysteria.

"As for the rest of this program, Obama promised yet another long list of spending projects. Let's just mention the reality: No government in the history of the world has spent as much, borrowed as much and created as much fake money as the United States. If the United States doesn't qualify as a fascist state in this sense, no government ever has.

"None of this would be possible but for the role of the Federal Reserve, the great lender to the world. This institution is absolutely critical to U.S. fiscal policy. There is no way that the national debt could increase at a rate of $4 billion per day without this institution.

"Under a gold standard, all of this maniacal spending would come to an end. And if U.S. debt were priced on the market with a default premium, we would be looking at a rating far less than A+."

Lew has a way of getting to the heart of the problem. It's the central bank monopolizing and debasing the money supply. It's the assumption that government interference in the economy is a good thing...and that the government knows where best to spend the money it either steals, borrows or, essentially, creates when it borrows from the central bank.

In today's feature article, Lew Rockwell shows us how close these poisonous assumptions have come to killing off the American Dream. Keep reading for more, and then stay tuned for the Parting Shot to see what you can do to make sure the Dream doesn't end for you...

Whiskey & Gunpowder
by Llewellyn Rockwell, Jr.
October 7, 2011
Phoenix, Arizona, U.S.A.

Fascism Kills the American Dream

Everyone knows that the term fascist is a pejorative, often used to describe any political position a speaker doesn't like. There isn't anyone around who is willing to stand up and say, "I'm a fascist; I think fascism is a great social and economic system."

But I submit that if they were honest, the vast majority of politicians, intellectuals and political activists would have to say just that.

Fascism is the system of government that cartelizes the private sector, centrally plans the economy to subsidize producers, exalts the police state as the source of order, denies fundamental rights and liberties to individuals and makes the executive state the unlimited master of society.

This describes mainstream politics in America today. And not just in America. It's true in Europe, too. It is so much part of the mainstream that it is hardly noticed anymore.

It is true that fascism has no overarching theoretical apparatus. There is no grand theorist like Marx. That makes it no less real and distinct as a social, economic and political system. Fascism also thrives as a distinct style of social and economic management. And it is as much or more of a threat to civilization than full-blown socialism.

This is because its traits are so much a part of life -- and have been for so long -- that they are nearly invisible to us.

If fascism is invisible to us, it is truly the silent killer. It fastens a huge, violent, lumbering state on the free market that drains its capital and productivity like a deadly parasite on a host. This is why the fascist state has been called the vampire economy. It sucks the economic life out of a nation and brings about a slow death of a once-thriving economy.

Let me just provide a recent example.


The Decline

The papers last week were filled with the first sets of data from the 2010 U.S. Census. The headline story concerned the huge increase in the poverty rate. It is the largest increase in 20 years, and now up to 15%.

But most people hear this and dismiss it, probably for good reason. The poor in this country are not poor by any historical standard. They have cell phones, cable TV, cars, lots of food and plenty of disposable income. What's more, there is no such thing as a fixed class called the poor. People come and go, depending on age and life circumstances. Plus, in American politics, when you hear kvetching about the poor, everyone knows what you're supposed to do: Hand the government your wallet.

Buried in the report is another fact that has much more profound significance. It concerns median household income in real terms.

What the data have revealed is devastating. Since 1999, median household income has fallen 7.1%. Since 1989, median family income is largely flat. And since 1973 and the end of the gold standard, it has hardly risen at all. The great wealth-generating machine that was once America is failing.

No longer can one generation expect to live a better life than the previous one. The fascist economic model has killed what was once called the American Dream. And the truth is, of course, even worse than the statistic reveals. You have to consider how many incomes exist within a single household to make up the total income. After World War II, the single-income family became the norm. Then the money was destroyed, and American savings were wiped out, and the capital base of the economy was devastated.

It was at this point that households began to struggle to stay above water. The year 1985 was the turning point. This was the year that it became more common than not for a household to have two incomes, rather than one. Mothers entered the work force to keep family income floating.

The intellectuals cheered this trend, as if it represented liberation, shouting hosannas that all women everywhere are now added to the tax rolls as valuable contributors to the state's coffers. The real cause is the rise of fiat money that depreciated the currency, robbed savings and shoved people into the work force as taxpayers.

This story is not told in the data alone. You have to look at the demographics to discover it.

This huge demographic shift, essentially, bought the American household another 20 years of seeming prosperity, though it is hard to call it that, since there was no longer any choice about the matter. If you wanted to keep living the dream, the household could no longer get by on a single income.

But this huge shift was merely an escape hatch. It bought 20 years of slight increases before the income trend flattened again. Over the last decade, we are back to falling. Today, median family income is only slightly above where it was when Nixon wrecked the dollar, put on price and wage controls, created the EPA and the whole apparatus of the parasitic welfare-warfare state came to be entrenched and made universal.

Yes, this is fascism, and we are paying the price. The dream is being destroyed.

The talk in Washington about reform, whether from Democrats or Republicans, is like a bad joke. They talk of small changes, small cuts, commissions they will establish, curbs they will make in 10 years. It is all white noise. None of this will fix the problem. Not even close.

The problem is more fundamental. It is the quality of the money. It is the very existence of 10,000 regulatory agencies. It is the whole assumption that you have to pay the state for the privilege to work. It is the presumption that the government must manage every aspect of the capitalist economic order. In short, it is the total state that is the problem, and the suffering and decline will continue so long as the total state exists.

Regards,

Lew Rockwell

Assassination of the U.S. Constitution

I don't say he didn't deserve to die... we all do, and toward that end we are all traveling... but, whether you like it or not, Anwar al-Awlaki was a U.S. citizen denied due process... assassinated by his government.

If the U.S. government can force its citizens to buy a product it does not want or face fines and penalties, then we have ceased to be a republic governed by rule of law. If the U.S. government can target and obliterate any specific individual via hellfire missile (or by any means), then we have ceased to be a republic governed by rule of law.

I do not lament the passing of al-Awlaki, but I do lament the passing of America.

It is the height of hypocrisy for an administration to criticize its predecessors for violating the constitution in the defense of this nation after the events of 9/11, and then violate the very same document by telling every American it has to buy medical insurance of face financial penalties... by trying, convicting, and executing an American citizen without due process.

I used to fear someone would target and kill our president; that would be a great disaster for this nation. But now I see that my fear was misplaced. I should have feared for America.

Obama Election Scenario Update

Seems that Dick Morris and I have been thinking along the same lines.

In my opinion, the very BEST thing Obama could do for his legacy at this point would be to bow out of the 2012 race while promising to focus like a laser on getting the economy moving again through TRUE bipartisanship efforts. However, by doing so now or in the future rather than when he had the opportunity during his infamous Joint-Session Jobs Bill speech, the impact will be greatly diminished. Had Obama done what Dick Morris and I have suggested he needs to do during that Joint-Session of Congress, he would have endeared himself to many people across the political spectrum and softened some of the harsh criticism he will likely receive throughout America's future history.

Questions to Consider

But I have to present it...

No one gets rich without the blood, sweat and taxes of ALL Americans?

If I make a million dollars day-trading.... I have no factory, no product ships over any highway... and thieves like Warren tell me that government has a right to expect and insist I "pay it forward"? To who? The poor? Did the poor help me make my trades? Did they tell me when I should sell or buy? Did they offer stock tips? At present government is entitled to 15% capital gains tax on long terms trades... on money that has already been taxed once! That percentage jumps considerably higher for short term (of which day-trading is) capital gains. Even at that, the question still remains to be answered by ANY Republican candidate, 'how much of every dollar I earn should I be allowed to keep?'

Ideologues like Elizabeth Warren will say: 'you can have whatever is left after all the underachievers, moochers, and government spendthrifts and wastrels, are appeased.

48% of wage earners pay no federal income tax at all (after IRS refunds); many of that 48% get more back than what they paid in via EITC. What happens when that number breaks the 50% threshold? A permanent underclass dependent upon government handouts and a permanent party power-structure in Washington... Freedom in America will be, effectively, dead. Our Republic will be finished.

As it stands now 86% of all federal income taxes are paid by the top 25% of wage earners. The top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of all federal income taxes. What happens when the top 55% of wage earners are paying ALL federal income taxes? Refer to the previous paragraph: the republic will be dead. American will be dead.

When is a rich person's "fair share" paid in full? When 50 cents of every dollar is going to the government (including income, capital gains, state, city, & local taxes)? 60 cents? 70 cents? 80 cents? 90 cents out of every dollar? How much of one's labor is considered inviolable to government forfeiture?

And just who is rich?

Elizabeth Warren is the worst kind of thief. She doesn't steal to satisfy a personal need, she steals to make herself feel good about helping those she deems 'downtrodden.'

She wants you to give her money so she can steal from you when she wins.

Well, we have enough of those in Washington already. 

What's wrong with Senate politics...

This:




Did you hear it? No? Check out her website. What does it say at the top in big bold letters?

Elizabeth Warren... for Massachusetts
 

That's right: FOR Massachusetts. Not America.

Is she's asking AMERICANS to support her bid to, ostensibly, represent the interests of Massachusetts? No! Hell, no! Does she wants to represent the interests of ALL Americans? No!

If she wants to represent the people of Massachusetts she should be running for a house district seat, this way she could represent the people of her district. But she's running for the senate, where, according to her own words, she'll represent the interests of her ideological constituency over those of her state. She wants your support, your money, whether you live in Massachusetts or not. And that is what's wrong with Senate politics. That's what's wrong with the 17th Amendment.

I have no doubt she means well, in her own democratically twisted way, but the senate has been corrupted by the 17th amendment, which should be repealed. Let senators return to the days when they were appointed by their state governors and represented the interests of their state... not the entire nation, and only one faction of the electorate at that.