That’s what the news headlines should say; instead newspapers are reporting Carter’s "negotiations" with the terrorist organization, Hamas. Following Carter’s negotiation with Hamas, perhaps we can expect that Carter will announce a peace deal has been
"Negotiated" with al-Qaeda; but that may be difficult from a jail cell where Carter belongs.
What law did Carter violate that should land him in jail; the Logan Act. The law has been on the books since January 30, 1799 [1 Stat. 613, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004)].
The Logan Act is a federal statute that makes it a crime for a citizen to confer with foreign governments against the interests of the United States. Specifically, it prohibits citizens from negotiating with other nations on behalf of the United States without authorization.
Congress passed the Logan Act in 1799, less than one year after passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts (which unfortunately are no longer on the books).
The 1799 law was named after Dr. George Logan, a prominent Quaker physician from Pennsylvania. In the late 1790s, France embargoed trade from the United States and also jailed U.S. seamen. Quite naturally this created animosity between the two countries. As a Neville Chamberlain type, similar to Carter, Logan sailed to France in the hope of improving relations with the United States. The Federalists didn’t like the idea of an unauthorized person handling the country’s foreign policy so to prevent U.S. citizens from interfering with negotiations between the United States and foreign governments in the future, the John Adams administration introduced the bill that would become the Logan Act.
"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects."
Grounds to enforce the Logan Act have occurred during many administrations but authorities have been reluctant to take action under the law, mainly for political reasons.
One example of the act's use as a threat of prosecution involved the Reverend Jesse Jackson. In 1984 Jackson took well-publicized trips to Cuba and Nicaragua. President Ronald Reagan suggested that Jackson's activities may have violated the law, but Jackson was not pursued beyond a threat.
Reagan was also incensed in 1987 and 1988, at what he felt was "intrusion" into the negotiations between Nicaragua's Sandinista government and the Contras for a cease-fire by House Speaker Jim Wright. The National Security Council considered using the Logan Act against Wright, but nothing ever came of that too.
In another case, U.S. citizen John D. Martin, a prisoner of war in North Korea, was brought before a court-martial for collaborating with North Korean authorities and conducting "re-education" classes in the prison camp where he was held. The case was dismissed for the technical reason that the court-martial had no jurisdiction over acts he committed after the expiration of his enlistment.
However, In United States v. Curtis-Wright Export Corp. (1936), Justice Sutherland wrote in the majority opinion for the U.S. Supreme Court:
"[T]he President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it."
Sutherland also noted in his opinion the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations report to the Senate of February 15, 1816:
"The President is the constitutional representative of the United States with regard to foreign nations. He manages our concerns with foreign nations, and must necessarily be most competent to determine when, how, and upon what subjects negotiation may be urged with the greatest prospect of success. For his conduct, he is responsible to the Constitution."
It’s not as if congress was not warned about conduct in violation of the Logan Act, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi ignored the admonition and held discussions with Middle East leaders. In a memorandum dated September 29, 2006, and entitled "MEMORANDUM FOR ALL MEMBERS AND OFFICERS", from the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct of the United States House of Representatives, regarding the subject of "Post-Employment and Related Restrictions for Members and Officers" members of the House were cautioned regarding activities that may implicate the Logan Act:
"Members should further be aware of a permanent federal statutory restriction that prohibits any U.S. citizen acting without authority of the United States from: ‘Directly or indirectly commencing or carrying on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government, or any officer or agent thereof, with the intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States."
In June 2007, Representative Steve King introduced legislation that would have prohibited Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi from using federal funds to travel to foreign states which the U.S. deems to sponsor terrorism. King claimed that Pelosi's dialogue with the Syrian government violated the Logan Act but the legislation was not adopted.
In 1802, a Kentucky farmer wrote a newspaper article advocating that the western part of the U.S. form a new nation allied to France. A United States attorney (John Marshall's brother-in-law!) got an indictment against the farmer.
I agree with attorney Marty Lederman who in commenting on the 1802 case wrote "I think there's much to be said for the notion that insofar as actual U.S. communications with the outside world are concerned, the President is to be (in Marshall's famous words) the 'sole organ' by which U.S. policy is conveyed (consistent, again, with statutory direction). More broadly, as far as official U.S. execution of the law is concerned, Congress and its members and/or agents can have no role, once the process of bicameralism and presentment is completed."
The prohibition of this statute, read literally, has been constantly violated since its enactment, but that is unfortunate. Failure to apply the statute to those that seek to undermine the President’s sole authority to conduct foreign policy leads to such despicable actions as practiced by Carter in his negotiation with Hamas for the destruction of Israel.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Muslims and non Muslims don’t speak the same language
When two people speak together a useful exchange of views requires that both adopt the same language and recognize similar meanings of words; otherwise discourse is meaningless and neither will understand the other. This requirement unfortunately is the reason Muslims and non Muslims cannot achieve a rational common understanding of issues critical to their existence together.
Of all social concepts perhaps freedom, liberty and democracy are the most important. Freedom and liberty go together but democracy is in the eye of the beholder; which is to say to some democracy is a prelude to freedom and liberty and to others it is a way to impose, solidify and entrench their philosophy on a "democratic" population for all time. The Middle East and Communist states are prime examples of emplacement of unchangeable autocratic regimes short of a bloody revolution. Indeed, the American Civil War is also an example of a bloody revolution to ensure one philosophy prevailed over another, even in a presumed "Democracy".
But with Islam these truths take on global ramifications because Islamists believe and expect their philosophy to rule the world and freedom and liberty, as known in western civilization, is at risk for survival.
Islam is a way of life, not merely a unique religion, where the life in this world gets its prescribed share of importance. It is neither belittled nor denied or exhaulted as in other religions, nor is it accorded all the significance to the exclusion of the Hereafter as in secularism. The importance of this world is described by the Quranic supplication, "O our Lord! Give us in this world that which is good and in the Hereafter that which is good, and save us from the torment of the Fire" (Qur’an, 2:201). This verse of the Qur’an describes the balance in life that has to be sought if Muslims, "the best of God’s creations," are to survive the "moral and spiritual crisis created by man’s ingratitude to his creator."
Islam as a complete code of life is seen by Muslims the only hope in the pathetic state of affairs that mankind finds itself today. Muslims believe they have heard God’s proclamation "This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favor upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion (way of life)" (Qur’an 5:3).
The Islamic Shariah is a complete scheme of life and an all-embracing social order where nothing is superfluous and nothing is lacking. Therefore there is no separation between state and church. This artificial separation, from an Islamic perspective, destroys the transcendence of all moral values. In Qur’anic words "those who forget God eventually forget themselves" (Qur'an 59:19) and their individual and communal personalities disintegrate. Thus, Islam is considered the religion in which, through voluntary submission to God, human beings find peace with themselves and their environment. A Muslim seeks God’s guidance in all matters all the time.
For Muslims there is no contradiction between the divine rights of the individual, as anchored in the Qur'an, and the core right as embodied in universal human rights declarations. Muslims believe in a way foreign to the thinking of non Muslims that they actually support fundamental human-rights, the rule of law, and division of power with accountability and transparency, universal suffrage and eligibility, freedom of speech and conscious, as long as these concepts are defined by Shariah law.
Islamic Shariah law commands its followers to observe the local legal order and participate fully in community matters on the principals of general welfare of humanity and seeking the common good. Muslims can live anywhere in the world, provided they can fulfill their fundamental religious duties, while also respecting and abiding by all the regulations of the land; and if this means using democracy to do that, so be it. After all, in sufficient numbers, Muslims can democratically vote themselves into power and then decree Shariah law will prevail.
Election and voting is approved in Islam from the way in which the first "Khalifa" (caliph), Abu Bakr(ra), and the third Khalifa, Uthman ibn ‘Affan(ra), were chosen or elected by the Muslims in Medina during the first century of Islam in the first Islamic state. There was a consensus, i.e. majority vote, which is found in authentic literature and is therefore an example of approval of voting as a part of Islamism.
To Muslims, forming ties of cooperation with non-Muslims in worldly affairs is permissible as long as that will bring benefits to Muslims and the wider community while also helping establishing their idea of justice and to avoid whatever Muslims consider unjust to them. Therefore, there is nothing wrong about Muslims' participating in elections run in non Muslim countries, especially when such participation accrues benefits to Muslims or wards off harm.
For those like me who were unaware, there is something called "the European Council for Fatwa and Research" and they issued a "Fatwa" to shed light on Muslims use of voting in democratic elections; it involves loyalty and religious cohesiveness.
The first is loyalty concerns religious matters. It refers to creedal loyalty, which lays in believing in Allah and shunning other beliefs that run counter to the "Oneness of Allah" (you probably have to be a Muslim to understand this one). According to the text, "Almighty Allah Says: ‘Your friend can be only Allah; and His messenger and those who believe, who establish worship and pay the poor due, and bow down (in prayer)’ (Surah Al-Ma’dah: 55)."
The second loyalty concerns worldly matters: This refers to transactions between people living in the same society or between different societies, regardless of distance and religion. It is permissible for Muslims to engage with non Muslims in commercial transactions, peace treaties and covenants according to the rules and conditions prevalent in those countries, but Muslims retain the right to abrogate any commitments to non Muslims if adherence to the words of Allah as announced by Mohammad in the Koran so require. Books of Islamic jurisprudence contain many references to such dealings.
The third admonition is the "Prophet's Response to Calls for Aid". Muslims believe "The humanitarian gestures of the Prophet towards the people of Mecca were not confined to the period he spent with them. This noble attitude continued even after he emigrated from Mecca to Medina and established the Islamic state there. He nevertheless rushed to lend the hand of support when calamities befell the people of Mecca.”One of the main goals of Islamic law is to achieve benefits and ward off harms to Muslims, whether at the individual level or the Muslim society as a whole. Muslims’ participation in elections is a religious duty. It is a type of mutual cooperation with those whom Muslims think as prospective candidates, will bring benefits for society in general and Muslims in particular.
Sheikh Abdul Muhsin al-Abbaad of Saudi Arabia was asked whether it is permissible for Muslim minorities to vote in local elections if they believe that one of the candidates can benefit Muslims and the community. He replied:
"There is no harm in voting for candidates who will be of more benefit to Muslims and the community more than the others. In this instance, voting for them is an example of doing the lesser of two evils to avoid the greater evil. The candidate who is less harmful to Muslims is better than the candidate whose harm is far greater.
I consider Muslim political participation, especially in a non-Muslim country, as a form of jihad. This is our country and it would be foolish not to participate in the political processes which eventually shape our future and that of Islam. I support marching in the streets to raise awareness about certain issues. However, if we really want to change the status-quo then we have to influence those who walk the corridors of power. Muslims need not only to vote but put forward Muslim candidates in all the mainstream and serious independent parties. We need to be represented or be present at the tables around which policies are discussed, made and agreed."
Looking at the situation of the Muslim community and their need to have their interests met, it is not unlike those of liberals and conservatives in that it becomes advisable for the Muslims to achieve this purpose through the available political system. Through voting, a person can be elected to office who sympathizes with the "Muslim cause." The problem is that the "Muslim cause" is antithetical to a free society and secular democracy. Muslims want the world to follow Shariah law and with it the subjugation of women, human rights, tolerance of all others and their right to believe as they wish; all of which are necessary foundations of freedom and liberty, and what we call, foolishly, Democracy.
We must recognize Islam for what it is, failure to do so will assure western civilization as we know it will not survive. Freedom and Islam cannot live together, regardless what too many believe. Liberty and justice for all are not part of the Islamic lexicon; it is not possible to communicate with someone who doesn’t use the same language.
Of all social concepts perhaps freedom, liberty and democracy are the most important. Freedom and liberty go together but democracy is in the eye of the beholder; which is to say to some democracy is a prelude to freedom and liberty and to others it is a way to impose, solidify and entrench their philosophy on a "democratic" population for all time. The Middle East and Communist states are prime examples of emplacement of unchangeable autocratic regimes short of a bloody revolution. Indeed, the American Civil War is also an example of a bloody revolution to ensure one philosophy prevailed over another, even in a presumed "Democracy".
But with Islam these truths take on global ramifications because Islamists believe and expect their philosophy to rule the world and freedom and liberty, as known in western civilization, is at risk for survival.
Islam is a way of life, not merely a unique religion, where the life in this world gets its prescribed share of importance. It is neither belittled nor denied or exhaulted as in other religions, nor is it accorded all the significance to the exclusion of the Hereafter as in secularism. The importance of this world is described by the Quranic supplication, "O our Lord! Give us in this world that which is good and in the Hereafter that which is good, and save us from the torment of the Fire" (Qur’an, 2:201). This verse of the Qur’an describes the balance in life that has to be sought if Muslims, "the best of God’s creations," are to survive the "moral and spiritual crisis created by man’s ingratitude to his creator."
Islam as a complete code of life is seen by Muslims the only hope in the pathetic state of affairs that mankind finds itself today. Muslims believe they have heard God’s proclamation "This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favor upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion (way of life)" (Qur’an 5:3).
The Islamic Shariah is a complete scheme of life and an all-embracing social order where nothing is superfluous and nothing is lacking. Therefore there is no separation between state and church. This artificial separation, from an Islamic perspective, destroys the transcendence of all moral values. In Qur’anic words "those who forget God eventually forget themselves" (Qur'an 59:19) and their individual and communal personalities disintegrate. Thus, Islam is considered the religion in which, through voluntary submission to God, human beings find peace with themselves and their environment. A Muslim seeks God’s guidance in all matters all the time.
For Muslims there is no contradiction between the divine rights of the individual, as anchored in the Qur'an, and the core right as embodied in universal human rights declarations. Muslims believe in a way foreign to the thinking of non Muslims that they actually support fundamental human-rights, the rule of law, and division of power with accountability and transparency, universal suffrage and eligibility, freedom of speech and conscious, as long as these concepts are defined by Shariah law.
Islamic Shariah law commands its followers to observe the local legal order and participate fully in community matters on the principals of general welfare of humanity and seeking the common good. Muslims can live anywhere in the world, provided they can fulfill their fundamental religious duties, while also respecting and abiding by all the regulations of the land; and if this means using democracy to do that, so be it. After all, in sufficient numbers, Muslims can democratically vote themselves into power and then decree Shariah law will prevail.
Election and voting is approved in Islam from the way in which the first "Khalifa" (caliph), Abu Bakr(ra), and the third Khalifa, Uthman ibn ‘Affan(ra), were chosen or elected by the Muslims in Medina during the first century of Islam in the first Islamic state. There was a consensus, i.e. majority vote, which is found in authentic literature and is therefore an example of approval of voting as a part of Islamism.
To Muslims, forming ties of cooperation with non-Muslims in worldly affairs is permissible as long as that will bring benefits to Muslims and the wider community while also helping establishing their idea of justice and to avoid whatever Muslims consider unjust to them. Therefore, there is nothing wrong about Muslims' participating in elections run in non Muslim countries, especially when such participation accrues benefits to Muslims or wards off harm.
For those like me who were unaware, there is something called "the European Council for Fatwa and Research" and they issued a "Fatwa" to shed light on Muslims use of voting in democratic elections; it involves loyalty and religious cohesiveness.
The first is loyalty concerns religious matters. It refers to creedal loyalty, which lays in believing in Allah and shunning other beliefs that run counter to the "Oneness of Allah" (you probably have to be a Muslim to understand this one). According to the text, "Almighty Allah Says: ‘Your friend can be only Allah; and His messenger and those who believe, who establish worship and pay the poor due, and bow down (in prayer)’ (Surah Al-Ma’dah: 55)."
The second loyalty concerns worldly matters: This refers to transactions between people living in the same society or between different societies, regardless of distance and religion. It is permissible for Muslims to engage with non Muslims in commercial transactions, peace treaties and covenants according to the rules and conditions prevalent in those countries, but Muslims retain the right to abrogate any commitments to non Muslims if adherence to the words of Allah as announced by Mohammad in the Koran so require. Books of Islamic jurisprudence contain many references to such dealings.
The third admonition is the "Prophet's Response to Calls for Aid". Muslims believe "The humanitarian gestures of the Prophet towards the people of Mecca were not confined to the period he spent with them. This noble attitude continued even after he emigrated from Mecca to Medina and established the Islamic state there. He nevertheless rushed to lend the hand of support when calamities befell the people of Mecca.”One of the main goals of Islamic law is to achieve benefits and ward off harms to Muslims, whether at the individual level or the Muslim society as a whole. Muslims’ participation in elections is a religious duty. It is a type of mutual cooperation with those whom Muslims think as prospective candidates, will bring benefits for society in general and Muslims in particular.
Sheikh Abdul Muhsin al-Abbaad of Saudi Arabia was asked whether it is permissible for Muslim minorities to vote in local elections if they believe that one of the candidates can benefit Muslims and the community. He replied:
"There is no harm in voting for candidates who will be of more benefit to Muslims and the community more than the others. In this instance, voting for them is an example of doing the lesser of two evils to avoid the greater evil. The candidate who is less harmful to Muslims is better than the candidate whose harm is far greater.
I consider Muslim political participation, especially in a non-Muslim country, as a form of jihad. This is our country and it would be foolish not to participate in the political processes which eventually shape our future and that of Islam. I support marching in the streets to raise awareness about certain issues. However, if we really want to change the status-quo then we have to influence those who walk the corridors of power. Muslims need not only to vote but put forward Muslim candidates in all the mainstream and serious independent parties. We need to be represented or be present at the tables around which policies are discussed, made and agreed."
Looking at the situation of the Muslim community and their need to have their interests met, it is not unlike those of liberals and conservatives in that it becomes advisable for the Muslims to achieve this purpose through the available political system. Through voting, a person can be elected to office who sympathizes with the "Muslim cause." The problem is that the "Muslim cause" is antithetical to a free society and secular democracy. Muslims want the world to follow Shariah law and with it the subjugation of women, human rights, tolerance of all others and their right to believe as they wish; all of which are necessary foundations of freedom and liberty, and what we call, foolishly, Democracy.
We must recognize Islam for what it is, failure to do so will assure western civilization as we know it will not survive. Freedom and Islam cannot live together, regardless what too many believe. Liberty and justice for all are not part of the Islamic lexicon; it is not possible to communicate with someone who doesn’t use the same language.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
In St. Louis “crime is down, except for murder”
The Police Chief in St. Louis told the media he was proud that in St. Louis crime was down, “except for murder”; what a remarkable statement and what a strange thing to announce as an achievement.
This got me to think about crime in the United States so I did a little research.
First let’s consider who is in jail. As reported in the New York Times, the United States leads the world in prisoner production. There are 2.3 million people behind bars in our country. China, with four times as many people, has 1.6 million in prison. In terms of population, the United States has 751 people in prison for every 100,000, while the closest competitor in this regard is Russia with 627, the rate in Cuba is 531.
The recent trend is also amazing since most people jailed in the United States are due to drug laws. From 1925 to 1975, the rate of imprisonment was stable at 110, lower than the international average. But then it suddenly shot up in the 1980s; there were 30,000 people in jail for drugs in 1980, while today there are half a million.
Of course there are other crimes resulting in jail sentences because so much is criminalized in these modern times, including passing bad checks and the pettiest of thefts. Judges are under all sorts of minimum-sentencing requirements. Certainly it is necessary to jail some people. However when they are “doing time”, people in jail cost tax payers about $25,000 each, per year. It is expensive to house criminals; states alone spend $44 billion on prisons every year.
The modern prison system is also a relatively new phenomenon in history. Statistics show that we are mainly using the criminal system to enforce the drug war rather than punishing more serious crimes. This has become necessary because illegal drugs are now a $100 billion industry in the United States. The drug war itself cost taxpayers $19 billion.
The costs of running the justice system are skyrocketing; up 418% percent in 25 years. Ironically, the "crime" of drug use and distribution hasn't really been kept down; it has only gone further underground. It is also a major irony and commentary on the workability of prisons and our justice system that drug markets are very active in the world despite the huge enforcement efforts.
Personally I wonder what the cost of enforcing traffic laws is; surely this has become a thriving industry all by itself. For every one policeman looking for and apprehending real criminals, it seem so me there are a thousand on the roads looking for “traffic criminals”; (perhaps a slight exaggeration.)
Some social scientists say that all this is due to the lack of a "social safety net" in the United States but the United States has had such a porous net for a hundred years. I believe however that it is more likely the very presence of such a net creates a moral hazard so that people do not learn to be responsible for their own well being and that contributes to criminal behavior (all else being equal).
There are also those who attribute the increase to racial factors, given that the imprisoned population is disproportionately black and Hispanic, and noting the disparity in crime rates in places with low minority populations like Minnesota. One suggestion comes from liberal political analysts who observe the “politicization” of judicial appointments in the United States (meaning appointment of “law and order” judges). Another factor may be the lobbying power of the prison industry itself. The old rule is that if you subsidize something, you get more of it. And so it is with prisons and the prison-industrial complex. It’s not clear how large these industries are, but consider that they include construction firms, managers of private prisons, wardens, prison guards with a very strong union, food service providers, counselors, security services, and 100 other kinds of companies to build and manage these institutions. What kind of political influence do they have?
Also, remember that every law on the books, every regulation, every line in the government codebook, is ultimately enforced by prison. The jail cell is the symbol and ultimate end of social stability itself.
Robert Ingersoll wrote:
“The world has been filled with prisons and dungeons, with chains and whips, with crosses and gibbets, with thumb-screws and racks, with hangmen and headsmen — and yet these frightful means and instrumentalities and crimes have accomplished little for the preservation of property or life. It is safe to say that governments have committed far more crimes than they have prevented. As long as society bows and cringes before the great thieves (government and politicians), there will be little ones enough to fill the jails.”
What do you think; is Ingersoll right?
This got me to think about crime in the United States so I did a little research.
First let’s consider who is in jail. As reported in the New York Times, the United States leads the world in prisoner production. There are 2.3 million people behind bars in our country. China, with four times as many people, has 1.6 million in prison. In terms of population, the United States has 751 people in prison for every 100,000, while the closest competitor in this regard is Russia with 627, the rate in Cuba is 531.
The recent trend is also amazing since most people jailed in the United States are due to drug laws. From 1925 to 1975, the rate of imprisonment was stable at 110, lower than the international average. But then it suddenly shot up in the 1980s; there were 30,000 people in jail for drugs in 1980, while today there are half a million.
Of course there are other crimes resulting in jail sentences because so much is criminalized in these modern times, including passing bad checks and the pettiest of thefts. Judges are under all sorts of minimum-sentencing requirements. Certainly it is necessary to jail some people. However when they are “doing time”, people in jail cost tax payers about $25,000 each, per year. It is expensive to house criminals; states alone spend $44 billion on prisons every year.
The modern prison system is also a relatively new phenomenon in history. Statistics show that we are mainly using the criminal system to enforce the drug war rather than punishing more serious crimes. This has become necessary because illegal drugs are now a $100 billion industry in the United States. The drug war itself cost taxpayers $19 billion.
The costs of running the justice system are skyrocketing; up 418% percent in 25 years. Ironically, the "crime" of drug use and distribution hasn't really been kept down; it has only gone further underground. It is also a major irony and commentary on the workability of prisons and our justice system that drug markets are very active in the world despite the huge enforcement efforts.
Personally I wonder what the cost of enforcing traffic laws is; surely this has become a thriving industry all by itself. For every one policeman looking for and apprehending real criminals, it seem so me there are a thousand on the roads looking for “traffic criminals”; (perhaps a slight exaggeration.)
Some social scientists say that all this is due to the lack of a "social safety net" in the United States but the United States has had such a porous net for a hundred years. I believe however that it is more likely the very presence of such a net creates a moral hazard so that people do not learn to be responsible for their own well being and that contributes to criminal behavior (all else being equal).
There are also those who attribute the increase to racial factors, given that the imprisoned population is disproportionately black and Hispanic, and noting the disparity in crime rates in places with low minority populations like Minnesota. One suggestion comes from liberal political analysts who observe the “politicization” of judicial appointments in the United States (meaning appointment of “law and order” judges). Another factor may be the lobbying power of the prison industry itself. The old rule is that if you subsidize something, you get more of it. And so it is with prisons and the prison-industrial complex. It’s not clear how large these industries are, but consider that they include construction firms, managers of private prisons, wardens, prison guards with a very strong union, food service providers, counselors, security services, and 100 other kinds of companies to build and manage these institutions. What kind of political influence do they have?
Also, remember that every law on the books, every regulation, every line in the government codebook, is ultimately enforced by prison. The jail cell is the symbol and ultimate end of social stability itself.
Robert Ingersoll wrote:
“The world has been filled with prisons and dungeons, with chains and whips, with crosses and gibbets, with thumb-screws and racks, with hangmen and headsmen — and yet these frightful means and instrumentalities and crimes have accomplished little for the preservation of property or life. It is safe to say that governments have committed far more crimes than they have prevented. As long as society bows and cringes before the great thieves (government and politicians), there will be little ones enough to fill the jails.”
What do you think; is Ingersoll right?
Thursday, April 24, 2008
The federal government has overruled the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution
Amendment X to the Constitution of the United States of America states:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
The wording on the delegation of powers between the federal and state governments is very clear but 200 years after the amendment was adopted federal law makers have succeeded in subverting the language and intent of the amendment.
Perhaps it was inevitable that those making our laws would succumb to the enormous power of office despite the clarity of vision demonstrated by the creators of the Constitution. This occurred when federal lawmakers discovered the tool to expand government control was the power of the purse. It is a process that began many years ago and is still continuing at the cost to the American taxpayer of billions of dollars, maybe even trillions, over the years. In a word, governmental power over the states is done by extortion.
It may be unclear just when federal lawmakers first realized they could use the federal budget to make states dependent on federal money to such a point that they could then extort from the states, the powers that the Constitution had specifically denied them, but learn it they did. Lawmakers are now well aware of how to usurp the powers of the states; it is a three step process.
The steps are “assistance”, “encumbrance” and out and out extortion.
Since there is no end to the “good” liberals can conjure, it is a natural thought process that leads to redistribution of wealth to achieve a balance of benefits among people in all states. It is considered unfair that wealthier states are able to spend more money on desirable goals than poorer states so the federal government must step in to right this wrong.
For example, wealthier states spend more on education than poorer states so in order to help equalize education, the federal government should provide assistance to all states. This is in done by giving federal tax dollars to all states according to their needs for equalization of outcome. What could be fairer than to have citizens of the wealthier states pay the largest proportion of this equalization by additional taxes which are then redistributed back to the states according to population figures. This makes perfect sense if you ignore the fact that there is no justification under the constitution for the federal government to redistribute wealth.
Another approach to extending federal control over states is to make state and local governments dependent on federal funding. When a state wants to build new schools or highways, they often vote bonds to fund the construction. The federal government gives the states money for many purposes and that money is worked into the state budget. For the buyers of the bonds it is important to know the state has the ability to repay the bonds. The value of the bonds to the investors who buy them is based upon what they believe is the ability of the state to repay the bonds which in turn is based on the expectation of continued receipt by the state of millions of dollars from the federal government over the period of the bonds. Thus, the state builds up significant debt relying upon the continuance of funding from the federal government. Naturally, no money comes from the federal government without strings attached so the state must necessarily follow the dictates of the federal government in order to continue to receive this money.
Once the states are sufficiently encumbered, it is no problem for federal lawmakers to extort the state to relinquish power it has under the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution. The federal government uses the newly acquired power to demand the state undertake various policies and the state has no choice but to comply. If the state does not do what the federal government requires, federal “assistance” funds are not provided. If the state does not receive the federal money, not only do they lose the “redistributed funds” from other states and their tax payers, their bond rating will drop thereby increasing the cost to the state for borrowing money for state needs. You can spin the process anyway you wish but in reality this is simple extortion.
Walter Williams, perhaps one of the clearest thinkers on the stage today, wrote:
“One response to federal encroachment is for state governments to declare federal laws that have no constitutional authority null and void, and refuse to enforce them. While the U.S. Constitution provides no specific provision for nullification, the case for nullification is found in the nature of compacts and agreements. Our constitution represents a compact between the states and the federal government. As with any compact, one party does not have a monopoly over its interpretation, nor can one party change it without the consent of the other. Additionally, no one has a moral obligation to obey unconstitutional laws. That's not to say there isn't a compelling case for obedience to unconstitutional laws: the brutal force of the federal government to coerce obedience.”
“In violation of both the letter and spirit, the federal government imposes unconstitutional and costly mandates covering the gamut from education and land usage to how much water can be used to flush toilets. I wonder when a governor and his state legislature will summon the courage to declare some of these federal laws null and void, and refuse to enforce them.”
Walter Williams gave just a few examples of the federal government intrusion on state’s rights, but there are many more. The federal government has used the prospect of withholding federal funds to coerce states into adoption of a huge number of federal policy dictates including, to mention just a few more, mandating highway speed limits, land use, mandatory minimum penalties for driving infractions and even the dumping of motor oil. Highway funds are or have been contingent on drug-free workplace laws, metric conversion and removing billboards from highways. Even the minimum drinking age has been mandated by the federal government to the states.
Such federal control prevents states from attempting their own ideas for effective governance. For example, if a state thinks there is a better way to monitor driver safety than a point system, they can’t use it without losing federal funds. If a state finds that something other than seat belts can provide better safety in an accident, they must still require seat belts or they will lose federal funds.The list goes on and on and on.
Of course federal leveraging by use of highway funds is not the only arrow in the federal quiver, we also see the federal money hand at work in education. Medicare and Medicaid socialized large segments of the health care industry and changed personal habits on the grounds that “risky or unhealthy behavior” could affect public expenditures for healthcare. Smoking, drinking, overeating, and lack of exercise are no longer considered as mere personal habits, but as unacceptable social behavior because they may cause higher Medicare and Medicaid costs and therefore should be officially discouraged along with “risky lifestyles”.
The judicial and executive branches of government have been complicit in the expansion of federal control by various practices of extortion upon the states. The government has used the threat of withholding federal funds from states to coerce the states to violate the rights of their citizens by passing and enforcing legislation without the consent of their citizens and without providing the funding to pay the costs thereof, while still collecting the taxes from their citizens which provide the funds they threaten to withhold – and we have allowed this to happen.
Thomas DiLorenzo, a Loyola University (Maryland) professor of economics, wrote a book entitled "The Real Lincoln" in which he presents evidence that most of the Founders took the right of state secession for granted. Of course, the Civil War settled this question but certainly what the Founders envisioned was that if the federal government did what is being done now, a dissatisfied state could just leave the union.
Since this can’t be done, do we allow the federal government to determine the scope of its own powers and accept whatever Congress, the White House and the courts say is constitutional? Alexander Hamilton thought otherwise. In Federalist Paper 28 Hamilton wrote, "The State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority."
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
The wording on the delegation of powers between the federal and state governments is very clear but 200 years after the amendment was adopted federal law makers have succeeded in subverting the language and intent of the amendment.
Perhaps it was inevitable that those making our laws would succumb to the enormous power of office despite the clarity of vision demonstrated by the creators of the Constitution. This occurred when federal lawmakers discovered the tool to expand government control was the power of the purse. It is a process that began many years ago and is still continuing at the cost to the American taxpayer of billions of dollars, maybe even trillions, over the years. In a word, governmental power over the states is done by extortion.
It may be unclear just when federal lawmakers first realized they could use the federal budget to make states dependent on federal money to such a point that they could then extort from the states, the powers that the Constitution had specifically denied them, but learn it they did. Lawmakers are now well aware of how to usurp the powers of the states; it is a three step process.
The steps are “assistance”, “encumbrance” and out and out extortion.
Since there is no end to the “good” liberals can conjure, it is a natural thought process that leads to redistribution of wealth to achieve a balance of benefits among people in all states. It is considered unfair that wealthier states are able to spend more money on desirable goals than poorer states so the federal government must step in to right this wrong.
For example, wealthier states spend more on education than poorer states so in order to help equalize education, the federal government should provide assistance to all states. This is in done by giving federal tax dollars to all states according to their needs for equalization of outcome. What could be fairer than to have citizens of the wealthier states pay the largest proportion of this equalization by additional taxes which are then redistributed back to the states according to population figures. This makes perfect sense if you ignore the fact that there is no justification under the constitution for the federal government to redistribute wealth.
Another approach to extending federal control over states is to make state and local governments dependent on federal funding. When a state wants to build new schools or highways, they often vote bonds to fund the construction. The federal government gives the states money for many purposes and that money is worked into the state budget. For the buyers of the bonds it is important to know the state has the ability to repay the bonds. The value of the bonds to the investors who buy them is based upon what they believe is the ability of the state to repay the bonds which in turn is based on the expectation of continued receipt by the state of millions of dollars from the federal government over the period of the bonds. Thus, the state builds up significant debt relying upon the continuance of funding from the federal government. Naturally, no money comes from the federal government without strings attached so the state must necessarily follow the dictates of the federal government in order to continue to receive this money.
Once the states are sufficiently encumbered, it is no problem for federal lawmakers to extort the state to relinquish power it has under the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution. The federal government uses the newly acquired power to demand the state undertake various policies and the state has no choice but to comply. If the state does not do what the federal government requires, federal “assistance” funds are not provided. If the state does not receive the federal money, not only do they lose the “redistributed funds” from other states and their tax payers, their bond rating will drop thereby increasing the cost to the state for borrowing money for state needs. You can spin the process anyway you wish but in reality this is simple extortion.
Walter Williams, perhaps one of the clearest thinkers on the stage today, wrote:
“One response to federal encroachment is for state governments to declare federal laws that have no constitutional authority null and void, and refuse to enforce them. While the U.S. Constitution provides no specific provision for nullification, the case for nullification is found in the nature of compacts and agreements. Our constitution represents a compact between the states and the federal government. As with any compact, one party does not have a monopoly over its interpretation, nor can one party change it without the consent of the other. Additionally, no one has a moral obligation to obey unconstitutional laws. That's not to say there isn't a compelling case for obedience to unconstitutional laws: the brutal force of the federal government to coerce obedience.”
“In violation of both the letter and spirit, the federal government imposes unconstitutional and costly mandates covering the gamut from education and land usage to how much water can be used to flush toilets. I wonder when a governor and his state legislature will summon the courage to declare some of these federal laws null and void, and refuse to enforce them.”
Walter Williams gave just a few examples of the federal government intrusion on state’s rights, but there are many more. The federal government has used the prospect of withholding federal funds to coerce states into adoption of a huge number of federal policy dictates including, to mention just a few more, mandating highway speed limits, land use, mandatory minimum penalties for driving infractions and even the dumping of motor oil. Highway funds are or have been contingent on drug-free workplace laws, metric conversion and removing billboards from highways. Even the minimum drinking age has been mandated by the federal government to the states.
Such federal control prevents states from attempting their own ideas for effective governance. For example, if a state thinks there is a better way to monitor driver safety than a point system, they can’t use it without losing federal funds. If a state finds that something other than seat belts can provide better safety in an accident, they must still require seat belts or they will lose federal funds.The list goes on and on and on.
Of course federal leveraging by use of highway funds is not the only arrow in the federal quiver, we also see the federal money hand at work in education. Medicare and Medicaid socialized large segments of the health care industry and changed personal habits on the grounds that “risky or unhealthy behavior” could affect public expenditures for healthcare. Smoking, drinking, overeating, and lack of exercise are no longer considered as mere personal habits, but as unacceptable social behavior because they may cause higher Medicare and Medicaid costs and therefore should be officially discouraged along with “risky lifestyles”.
The judicial and executive branches of government have been complicit in the expansion of federal control by various practices of extortion upon the states. The government has used the threat of withholding federal funds from states to coerce the states to violate the rights of their citizens by passing and enforcing legislation without the consent of their citizens and without providing the funding to pay the costs thereof, while still collecting the taxes from their citizens which provide the funds they threaten to withhold – and we have allowed this to happen.
Thomas DiLorenzo, a Loyola University (Maryland) professor of economics, wrote a book entitled "The Real Lincoln" in which he presents evidence that most of the Founders took the right of state secession for granted. Of course, the Civil War settled this question but certainly what the Founders envisioned was that if the federal government did what is being done now, a dissatisfied state could just leave the union.
Since this can’t be done, do we allow the federal government to determine the scope of its own powers and accept whatever Congress, the White House and the courts say is constitutional? Alexander Hamilton thought otherwise. In Federalist Paper 28 Hamilton wrote, "The State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority."
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
The Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement continues to develop in secrecy
What do you do when the name of your pet program elicits loud criticism; you change its name of course. That’s what the leaders of Mexico, Canada and the United States did when the Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement ran into unexpected opposition after details of SPP became known, notwithstanding efforts to keep it secret and away from public attention. The problem is that regardless what you call it, SPP is still bad news.
When Bush, Harper and Calderon met in New Orleans to continue their march toward a North American Union, the meeting was recast as a "North American Leaders Summit", the name was changed but the cast of characters and the plot remained the same. Behind the facade of a photo opportunity for President Bush, Mexico's President Felipe Caldron and Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper, was another real effort of trilateral cooperation just like their previous SPP meetings.
Before the meeting, the White House issued a press release noting that Bush, Caldron and Harper will meet in New Orleans to "review progress and continued cooperation under the Security and Prosperity Partnership," but as in connection with each earlier SPP-related meeting, there was no report after the meeting about what the meeting accomplished or what transpired. What is known however is that the SPP gathering included a meeting of the North American Competitiveness Council, or “NACC”. The NACC is a group of 30 multi-national mega corporations handpicked by the chambers of commerce in the three countries who meet in closed-door sessions to develop advice for the 20 trilateral bureaucratic working groups assigned to "integrate" and "harmonize" North American regulations over a wide range of public policy areas.
One of the strange things about the April, 2008 New Orleans “Summit” as reported by WorldNet Daily is that “all the media attending the meeting were separated physically into different locations, with separate press advisories indicating which events were open to which country's media”; whereas in prior meetings the media shared a common press area. It is also interesting that none of the principal participants mentioned SPP by name in their various press briefings and public comments. Once again, this shows that despite the goals remaining the same, public criticism of SPP was to be avoided at all costs, but to paraphrase the Shakespearean caveat, “manure by any other name smells the same.”
Despite efforts to maintain secrecy, an internal memo from Canada's Foreign Affairs and Internal Trade ministry, obtained by World Net News under the Canadian Access to Information Act, discloses the agenda of the secret summit meeting of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) in Montebello, Quebec, held on August 20-21, 2007. The main objective of that meeting was to find a way to get the American people to swallow the idea of the collaboration leading to the North American Union, and to squelch the growing criticism surrounding it. Also according to the memo as reported by natural news.com:
“The NACC issued no press releases disclosing specific recommendations made to them by the SPP trilateral working groups tasked with ‘integrating’ and ‘harmonizing’ administrative rules and regulations into a unified North American format. However, the memo documents that the NACC was urged to launch a public relations campaign to counter growing criticism of the trilateral cooperative that is seen by many as a major step toward the North American Union.”
As the meeting continued, the NACC members were urged to "assist in confronting and refuting critics of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America".
One portion of the memo indicates the public relations theme continued during the meeting. "In closing, all leaders expressed a desire for the NACC to play a role in articulating publicly the benefits of greater collaboration in North America", and further, "Leaders discussed some of the difficulties of the SPP, including the lack of popular support and the failure of the public to understand the competitive challenges confronting North America. Governments are faced with addressing the rapidly evolving competitive environment without fueling protectionism, when industry sectors face radical transformation."
The subsequent SPP meeting February 27-28, 2008 in Los Cabos, Mexico was also unreported in the U.S. and Canada but was disclosed in the Mexico City newspaper La Jornada. According to the newspaper, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez visited Mexico City prior to the Los Cabos meeting "to renegotiate NAFTA" by offering the information to Mexico that undisclosed U.S. corporations and the U.S. government are planning to place as much as $141 billion in new investments in Mexico under the Mexico National Infrastructure Project 2007-2012."
A press release published February 21, 2008 on the U.S. Trade and Development Agency web site which was also largely unreported by the U.S. press (do you see a pattern here?), mentioned that Secretary Gutierrez planned to announce United States Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) grants totaling more than $1.7 million made "to promote the development of transportation, energy and environmental projects under Mexico's National Infrastructure Program". Still another press release by the USTDA confirmed contribution of $141 billion to be made in July 2008 to Mexico's National Infrastructure Program to create investment opportunities for U.S. firms, principally the 20 mega multinational businesses that are members of the NACC.
The Department of Commerce's SPP website on Feb. 28, 2008 confirmed that Secretary of Commerce Gutierrez and Department of Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff traveled to Los Cabos to meet with ministers from Mexico and Canada in preparation for the fourth SPP annual summit meeting to be held in New Orleans on April 21-22. This SPP press release also confirmed the presence of the NACC at the Los Cabos closed-door meeting.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her counterparts in Mexico and Canada will represent the top state-level officials of the three countries dealing with SPP. This designation clearly places the SPP at the top foreign policy diplomatic level in each country. Gutierrez and his counterparts will be considered "SPP Prosperity Ministers", with Chertoff and his counterparts considered "SPP Security Ministers". Overall management of the SPP would fall under the "Prosperity Ministers'" authority.
A policy of secret, closed-door meetings where the press and the public is not invited to participate or observe the process continues to characterize meetings of the SPP and its trilateral working groups. It is only through efforts of diligent reporters that any information about the determination of leaders of the United States, Canada and Mexico to create a North American Union is ever revealed. It is reasonable for the public to question the motives and intentions of government actions conducted in secret and deliberately kept away from public scrutiny.
When Bush, Harper and Calderon met in New Orleans to continue their march toward a North American Union, the meeting was recast as a "North American Leaders Summit", the name was changed but the cast of characters and the plot remained the same. Behind the facade of a photo opportunity for President Bush, Mexico's President Felipe Caldron and Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper, was another real effort of trilateral cooperation just like their previous SPP meetings.
Before the meeting, the White House issued a press release noting that Bush, Caldron and Harper will meet in New Orleans to "review progress and continued cooperation under the Security and Prosperity Partnership," but as in connection with each earlier SPP-related meeting, there was no report after the meeting about what the meeting accomplished or what transpired. What is known however is that the SPP gathering included a meeting of the North American Competitiveness Council, or “NACC”. The NACC is a group of 30 multi-national mega corporations handpicked by the chambers of commerce in the three countries who meet in closed-door sessions to develop advice for the 20 trilateral bureaucratic working groups assigned to "integrate" and "harmonize" North American regulations over a wide range of public policy areas.
One of the strange things about the April, 2008 New Orleans “Summit” as reported by WorldNet Daily is that “all the media attending the meeting were separated physically into different locations, with separate press advisories indicating which events were open to which country's media”; whereas in prior meetings the media shared a common press area. It is also interesting that none of the principal participants mentioned SPP by name in their various press briefings and public comments. Once again, this shows that despite the goals remaining the same, public criticism of SPP was to be avoided at all costs, but to paraphrase the Shakespearean caveat, “manure by any other name smells the same.”
Despite efforts to maintain secrecy, an internal memo from Canada's Foreign Affairs and Internal Trade ministry, obtained by World Net News under the Canadian Access to Information Act, discloses the agenda of the secret summit meeting of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) in Montebello, Quebec, held on August 20-21, 2007. The main objective of that meeting was to find a way to get the American people to swallow the idea of the collaboration leading to the North American Union, and to squelch the growing criticism surrounding it. Also according to the memo as reported by natural news.com:
“The NACC issued no press releases disclosing specific recommendations made to them by the SPP trilateral working groups tasked with ‘integrating’ and ‘harmonizing’ administrative rules and regulations into a unified North American format. However, the memo documents that the NACC was urged to launch a public relations campaign to counter growing criticism of the trilateral cooperative that is seen by many as a major step toward the North American Union.”
As the meeting continued, the NACC members were urged to "assist in confronting and refuting critics of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America".
One portion of the memo indicates the public relations theme continued during the meeting. "In closing, all leaders expressed a desire for the NACC to play a role in articulating publicly the benefits of greater collaboration in North America", and further, "Leaders discussed some of the difficulties of the SPP, including the lack of popular support and the failure of the public to understand the competitive challenges confronting North America. Governments are faced with addressing the rapidly evolving competitive environment without fueling protectionism, when industry sectors face radical transformation."
The subsequent SPP meeting February 27-28, 2008 in Los Cabos, Mexico was also unreported in the U.S. and Canada but was disclosed in the Mexico City newspaper La Jornada. According to the newspaper, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez visited Mexico City prior to the Los Cabos meeting "to renegotiate NAFTA" by offering the information to Mexico that undisclosed U.S. corporations and the U.S. government are planning to place as much as $141 billion in new investments in Mexico under the Mexico National Infrastructure Project 2007-2012."
A press release published February 21, 2008 on the U.S. Trade and Development Agency web site which was also largely unreported by the U.S. press (do you see a pattern here?), mentioned that Secretary Gutierrez planned to announce United States Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) grants totaling more than $1.7 million made "to promote the development of transportation, energy and environmental projects under Mexico's National Infrastructure Program". Still another press release by the USTDA confirmed contribution of $141 billion to be made in July 2008 to Mexico's National Infrastructure Program to create investment opportunities for U.S. firms, principally the 20 mega multinational businesses that are members of the NACC.
The Department of Commerce's SPP website on Feb. 28, 2008 confirmed that Secretary of Commerce Gutierrez and Department of Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff traveled to Los Cabos to meet with ministers from Mexico and Canada in preparation for the fourth SPP annual summit meeting to be held in New Orleans on April 21-22. This SPP press release also confirmed the presence of the NACC at the Los Cabos closed-door meeting.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her counterparts in Mexico and Canada will represent the top state-level officials of the three countries dealing with SPP. This designation clearly places the SPP at the top foreign policy diplomatic level in each country. Gutierrez and his counterparts will be considered "SPP Prosperity Ministers", with Chertoff and his counterparts considered "SPP Security Ministers". Overall management of the SPP would fall under the "Prosperity Ministers'" authority.
A policy of secret, closed-door meetings where the press and the public is not invited to participate or observe the process continues to characterize meetings of the SPP and its trilateral working groups. It is only through efforts of diligent reporters that any information about the determination of leaders of the United States, Canada and Mexico to create a North American Union is ever revealed. It is reasonable for the public to question the motives and intentions of government actions conducted in secret and deliberately kept away from public scrutiny.
The future you save, might be your own
Would you be as concerned about the price of gasoline for your car if the government paid half of the cost? Not likely, because escalating gasoline costs would not be a big deal if the net effect does not impact your budget. If you think this could not be done, remember the government owns the money tree; it can print as many dollars as it wishes.
What about those selling gasoline? They would be thrilled with government assistance to their customers. Market forces of competition would not stand in the way of keeping prices high because the market would not be price sensitive. Eliminate competition for larger market share or greater sales volume and it is not necessary to lower prices to attract more business in order to make more profit.
This is the Democrat scenario for the game called "Everybody Wins"; everybody that is but the working fools paying taxes to support the "Everybody Wins" game. This is the modern day version of "Monopoly" but here the banker is you.
If all of us would spend even just a few moments as we sip our overpriced Starbucks coffee to think about the game, we would soon realize not everyone wins in this game regardless what Democrats call it.
It isn’t rocket science to come up with examples to uncover the fallacy of the "Everybody Wins" game; it can be revealed by virtually all government mandated programs intending to benefit a few at the expense of the many.
The popular leftist initiative to "give" everyone healthcare would be accomplished by "universal health insurance". However the cost of providing healthcare for everyone is huge, not just in direct costs but in how it affects the very care purported to be provided. Not only would people who do not want to pay for insurance be forced to do so, but healthcare providers would be pushed into receiving less and less for their services as one means of keeping costs low. What do you suppose will be the result if doctors have to see many more patients in a day to maintain sufficient income to meet their business costs?What do you suppose will happen to the quality of healthcare you receive under these circumstances? Who do you suppose would pay for the "free healthcare" some will receive?
We all know that college costs are high; too high in many cases to permit intelligent youngsters to receive an education that would not only help them in life but would also help our country’s growth and development. The government in seeking to remedy all problems with money offers financial support for students to assist them to pay the exorbitant costs charged by colleges and universities – and for that school year it works. But few think about the cause and effect of these government subsidies. With recognition that their high costs do not affect the "market" for students, there is no need for colleges and universities to lower their costs to attract more customers, i.e. students. Since all "places of higher learning" are recipients of the government largesse via their students, there is no competition for the customers and what otherwise would be market forces won’t apply to them.
Thomas Sowell said it best:
"In any kind of economic transaction, it seldom makes sense to charge prices so high that very few people can afford to pay them. But, with the government ready to step in and help whenever tuition is "unaffordable," why not charge more than the traffic will bear and bring in Uncle Sam to make up the difference?"
The government continues to subsidize farmers for not growing things, thanks to the legislative power of senators and congressmen from farm states, and the desire to receive votes in national election. It doesn’t seem to matter that the original purpose of assisting small farmers maintain their income while they supply needed food products to the rest of us, has been long past. Farms are now owned by mega businesses not mom and pop and their children living in a little house on the prairie. The result is the same as wherever the false "Everyone Wins" game is played; some people profit and the most of us pay. Is this the intended or unintended consequence?
Direct government handouts are not the only way to play the "Everybody Wins" game; it can also be played by government policy, sometime by taking action and sometimes by inaction.
When the government makes it easier for business to have lower labor costs by keeping open the doors for illegal immigration, profits can be higher and, if they wish, prices can be lower. Of course, there are two possibilities that may occur in this scenario, prices remain high and only profits increase, or American citizens wanting employment at living wages are shut out of the market and either remain unemployed or will necessarily have to also work for less wages.
All this is not to say that it is never in the country’s best interest for tax payers to support government assistance; of course there are situations which require us to accept the need for tax dollars to do what would not otherwise be able to be done that would help our country without this assistance. One outstanding example is in the energy field.
Instead of forcing curly cue light bulbs upon us and ethanol, with some initial government assistance legislatively and financially we could tap into a virtually limitless (at least for several hundred years) supply of coal to produce oil. Not only would this approach allow us to use existing fuel production and distribution systems, it could be accomplished in a very short time. The technology to convert coal to oil has not only existed for decades, it has continued to be developed and improved upon. Even today, The U.S. Air Force, not wanting to be caught short in wartime, has an ongoing program to supply itself with oil products resulting from coal-to-oil conversion. The only ones standing in the way of this solution to foreign oil dependence is ourselves. Remember what Pogo said "We have met the enemy and they is us."
Think about it, the future you save might be your own.
What about those selling gasoline? They would be thrilled with government assistance to their customers. Market forces of competition would not stand in the way of keeping prices high because the market would not be price sensitive. Eliminate competition for larger market share or greater sales volume and it is not necessary to lower prices to attract more business in order to make more profit.
This is the Democrat scenario for the game called "Everybody Wins"; everybody that is but the working fools paying taxes to support the "Everybody Wins" game. This is the modern day version of "Monopoly" but here the banker is you.
If all of us would spend even just a few moments as we sip our overpriced Starbucks coffee to think about the game, we would soon realize not everyone wins in this game regardless what Democrats call it.
It isn’t rocket science to come up with examples to uncover the fallacy of the "Everybody Wins" game; it can be revealed by virtually all government mandated programs intending to benefit a few at the expense of the many.
The popular leftist initiative to "give" everyone healthcare would be accomplished by "universal health insurance". However the cost of providing healthcare for everyone is huge, not just in direct costs but in how it affects the very care purported to be provided. Not only would people who do not want to pay for insurance be forced to do so, but healthcare providers would be pushed into receiving less and less for their services as one means of keeping costs low. What do you suppose will be the result if doctors have to see many more patients in a day to maintain sufficient income to meet their business costs?What do you suppose will happen to the quality of healthcare you receive under these circumstances? Who do you suppose would pay for the "free healthcare" some will receive?
We all know that college costs are high; too high in many cases to permit intelligent youngsters to receive an education that would not only help them in life but would also help our country’s growth and development. The government in seeking to remedy all problems with money offers financial support for students to assist them to pay the exorbitant costs charged by colleges and universities – and for that school year it works. But few think about the cause and effect of these government subsidies. With recognition that their high costs do not affect the "market" for students, there is no need for colleges and universities to lower their costs to attract more customers, i.e. students. Since all "places of higher learning" are recipients of the government largesse via their students, there is no competition for the customers and what otherwise would be market forces won’t apply to them.
Thomas Sowell said it best:
"In any kind of economic transaction, it seldom makes sense to charge prices so high that very few people can afford to pay them. But, with the government ready to step in and help whenever tuition is "unaffordable," why not charge more than the traffic will bear and bring in Uncle Sam to make up the difference?"
The government continues to subsidize farmers for not growing things, thanks to the legislative power of senators and congressmen from farm states, and the desire to receive votes in national election. It doesn’t seem to matter that the original purpose of assisting small farmers maintain their income while they supply needed food products to the rest of us, has been long past. Farms are now owned by mega businesses not mom and pop and their children living in a little house on the prairie. The result is the same as wherever the false "Everyone Wins" game is played; some people profit and the most of us pay. Is this the intended or unintended consequence?
Direct government handouts are not the only way to play the "Everybody Wins" game; it can also be played by government policy, sometime by taking action and sometimes by inaction.
When the government makes it easier for business to have lower labor costs by keeping open the doors for illegal immigration, profits can be higher and, if they wish, prices can be lower. Of course, there are two possibilities that may occur in this scenario, prices remain high and only profits increase, or American citizens wanting employment at living wages are shut out of the market and either remain unemployed or will necessarily have to also work for less wages.
All this is not to say that it is never in the country’s best interest for tax payers to support government assistance; of course there are situations which require us to accept the need for tax dollars to do what would not otherwise be able to be done that would help our country without this assistance. One outstanding example is in the energy field.
Instead of forcing curly cue light bulbs upon us and ethanol, with some initial government assistance legislatively and financially we could tap into a virtually limitless (at least for several hundred years) supply of coal to produce oil. Not only would this approach allow us to use existing fuel production and distribution systems, it could be accomplished in a very short time. The technology to convert coal to oil has not only existed for decades, it has continued to be developed and improved upon. Even today, The U.S. Air Force, not wanting to be caught short in wartime, has an ongoing program to supply itself with oil products resulting from coal-to-oil conversion. The only ones standing in the way of this solution to foreign oil dependence is ourselves. Remember what Pogo said "We have met the enemy and they is us."
Think about it, the future you save might be your own.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
We should not elect a bogus preacher for president
Robert Mitchum was a fine if underrated actor famous for playing bogus preacher roles. Among the many films in which Mitchum portrays such a character is The Night of the Hunter. Robert Mitchum plays an evil, diabolical, self-appointed preacher. Mitchum’s preacher is a really bad guy. He is a serial killer and con man.
Bogus preachers can be self appointed, as was Robert Mitchum, or they can be anointed by the public as a messianic politician. Barack Obama slides easily into that role. Though not self-appointed, Obama does not reject or deny the position but takes full advantage of it as a newly minted clergyman holding his parishioners in awe with his words and style if not the substance of his message. In this role, Obama can be said to emulate his mentor, the not so reverend Gerald Wright.
Whereas Mitchum’s sinister preacher was a criminal doing harm to some people, Obama can do much more damage. By deluding his flock with mesmerizing speeches, his audience fails to fully absorb his socialist ideas for running the country and the very far reaching implications.
If Barack Obama succeeds in his quest for the holy grail of American politics, we will have the most liberal senator in government sitting in the oval office and he will be the most liberal politician ever to be elected to the presidency. He is even more liberal than Ted Hennedy, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. In the past, Americans have rejected socialistic Democrats such as George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Jimmy Carter (for a second term), Michael Dukakis and Vietnam veteran John Kerry. Yet Obama who is more left than any of the previously rejected liberals who ran for president, he has a good chance to succeed where the others failed, and the reason is many people simply refuse to understand where Obama would lead the country from the most powerful elected position in the world.
As one writer said: "Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost; George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost; Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost. Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he's not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant. "
Voters should look behind Obama’s rhetoric from in front of a teleprompter and consider what he really stands for.
Obama’s positions include: opposing the death penalty under any circumstances; people should not be able to own handguns; opposition to free trade agreements; a belief that "negotiation" and discussions with murdering Islamic Nazis can get them to disavow annihilation of Israel and the killing of innocents in the United states and elsewhere; opposition to deregulation of government; raising taxes on workers who already provide more than 50% of government revenue to support greater redistribution of wealth; a universal health insurance scheme that will increase healthcare costs of employed Americans while reducing the quality and availability of healthcare services; a faith in government to solve all the world’s and the country’s problems in the incredible belief that a government run system is less expensive and more efficient than a private system; denial of efforts to increase domestic oil production such as opening ANWAR to exploration and oil drilling; a religious fervor belief that man is causing "global warming" and the solution is to reduce the quality of American life; a "comprehensive" approach to the illegal immigration problem that includes legalizing illegal immigrants, providing them amnesty and citizenship (unfortunately in these he shares the posture of all his rivals for presidential office); American tax payers should solve world poverty (Obama introduced a bill that would have tax payers spend $645 billion to eradicate poverty worldwide); and associations with anti-Americans such as Reverend Gerald Wright and American terrorist Bill Ayres, a leading member of the Weather Underground and an admitted and unrepentant bomber of American institutions whose philosophy as he stated is: ’’Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that’s where it’s really at’’.
If elected president Obama would be our Commander-in Chief but what would he do about national security? Last summer Obama talked about invading nuclear-armed Pakistan; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel, and with Kim Jong II, the murderer of his people by starvation. Obama has also stated that the nuclear option is off the table against terrorists. No wonder Hamas has endorsed Obama for president. Obama is a novice at foreign-policy and he would put our national security at risk.
Obama also had the audacity to say at a rally "All praise and glory to God!" while also saying Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have "hijacked Christianity." He is in favor of partial birth abortion and will appoint Supreme Court justices who are against any diminishing of the unfettered right to abortion. Those he relies upon for spiritual guidance endorse homosexual marriage and anti-Americanism.
In the economic area, Obama promises to raise taxes on "the rich" but says nothing about how to fix Social Security or Medicare. His solution to make prescription drugs available to seniors, provide healtcare to all children and for all manner of government takeovers and new programs is to raise taxes.
With Obama in charge and the House and Senate in Democrat hands, there will surely be a socialist agenda. Those who support Obama now should not fall for his eloquence as a speaker or his good looks. Voters should look behind the veneer and rhetoric, and his race, and consider how the United States would be irrevocably altered if Obama becomes president of our country. We must make sure a person is elected who is qualified for the office and who will not strive to change our country and those values which have made us great; our future and civilization depends on it. Obama is not that person.
Bogus preachers can be self appointed, as was Robert Mitchum, or they can be anointed by the public as a messianic politician. Barack Obama slides easily into that role. Though not self-appointed, Obama does not reject or deny the position but takes full advantage of it as a newly minted clergyman holding his parishioners in awe with his words and style if not the substance of his message. In this role, Obama can be said to emulate his mentor, the not so reverend Gerald Wright.
Whereas Mitchum’s sinister preacher was a criminal doing harm to some people, Obama can do much more damage. By deluding his flock with mesmerizing speeches, his audience fails to fully absorb his socialist ideas for running the country and the very far reaching implications.
If Barack Obama succeeds in his quest for the holy grail of American politics, we will have the most liberal senator in government sitting in the oval office and he will be the most liberal politician ever to be elected to the presidency. He is even more liberal than Ted Hennedy, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. In the past, Americans have rejected socialistic Democrats such as George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Jimmy Carter (for a second term), Michael Dukakis and Vietnam veteran John Kerry. Yet Obama who is more left than any of the previously rejected liberals who ran for president, he has a good chance to succeed where the others failed, and the reason is many people simply refuse to understand where Obama would lead the country from the most powerful elected position in the world.
As one writer said: "Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost; George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost; Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost. Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he's not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant. "
Voters should look behind Obama’s rhetoric from in front of a teleprompter and consider what he really stands for.
Obama’s positions include: opposing the death penalty under any circumstances; people should not be able to own handguns; opposition to free trade agreements; a belief that "negotiation" and discussions with murdering Islamic Nazis can get them to disavow annihilation of Israel and the killing of innocents in the United states and elsewhere; opposition to deregulation of government; raising taxes on workers who already provide more than 50% of government revenue to support greater redistribution of wealth; a universal health insurance scheme that will increase healthcare costs of employed Americans while reducing the quality and availability of healthcare services; a faith in government to solve all the world’s and the country’s problems in the incredible belief that a government run system is less expensive and more efficient than a private system; denial of efforts to increase domestic oil production such as opening ANWAR to exploration and oil drilling; a religious fervor belief that man is causing "global warming" and the solution is to reduce the quality of American life; a "comprehensive" approach to the illegal immigration problem that includes legalizing illegal immigrants, providing them amnesty and citizenship (unfortunately in these he shares the posture of all his rivals for presidential office); American tax payers should solve world poverty (Obama introduced a bill that would have tax payers spend $645 billion to eradicate poverty worldwide); and associations with anti-Americans such as Reverend Gerald Wright and American terrorist Bill Ayres, a leading member of the Weather Underground and an admitted and unrepentant bomber of American institutions whose philosophy as he stated is: ’’Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that’s where it’s really at’’.
If elected president Obama would be our Commander-in Chief but what would he do about national security? Last summer Obama talked about invading nuclear-armed Pakistan; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel, and with Kim Jong II, the murderer of his people by starvation. Obama has also stated that the nuclear option is off the table against terrorists. No wonder Hamas has endorsed Obama for president. Obama is a novice at foreign-policy and he would put our national security at risk.
Obama also had the audacity to say at a rally "All praise and glory to God!" while also saying Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have "hijacked Christianity." He is in favor of partial birth abortion and will appoint Supreme Court justices who are against any diminishing of the unfettered right to abortion. Those he relies upon for spiritual guidance endorse homosexual marriage and anti-Americanism.
In the economic area, Obama promises to raise taxes on "the rich" but says nothing about how to fix Social Security or Medicare. His solution to make prescription drugs available to seniors, provide healtcare to all children and for all manner of government takeovers and new programs is to raise taxes.
With Obama in charge and the House and Senate in Democrat hands, there will surely be a socialist agenda. Those who support Obama now should not fall for his eloquence as a speaker or his good looks. Voters should look behind the veneer and rhetoric, and his race, and consider how the United States would be irrevocably altered if Obama becomes president of our country. We must make sure a person is elected who is qualified for the office and who will not strive to change our country and those values which have made us great; our future and civilization depends on it. Obama is not that person.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
