President Obama and the 2nd Amendment

I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. I think we recognize the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation, that hunting and shooting are part of a national heritage, but I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals; that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities.

President Barack Obama

I beg to differ. The right to bear arms was not so that Americans could engage in the ‘national heritage’ of ‘hunting and shooting.’ President Obama paints a dichotomy that AK-47s should be with soldiers, not criminals? So, if you aren’t a soldier and have an AK, can one infer that you are probably a criminal? He has declared that only government-sanction individuals (i.e. soldiers) should have AKs. The .70 caliber flintlock musket was the military assault weapon of its day. If we had a modern militia in the sense the Founders viewed it, there would be an M-16 on the mantle of most homes. He reiterates this dichotomy by stating that AKs should be on battlefields, not our streets. So, though he claims to believe in the right to bear arms, he has a restricted view of it.

The right to bear arms was provided so that We the People and the several States could defend ourselves from powerful central government, like the one of King George III. The American Revolution would not have lasted long nor been concluded successfully if muskets were only in the hands of soldiers (that would be the Redcoats), not on the streets of our cities (e.g. Lexington, Concord, Boston, etc.). Americans were able to break free from an oppressive government because they were armed. They were armed for self-defense, not for ‘shooting.’ The purpose of an armed citizenry is to be one of the checks on government, which is why big government supporters don’t like the Second Amendment.

Crony Capitalism: A Love Story

Crony Capitalism: A description of capitalist society as being based on the close relationships between businessmen and the state. Instead of success being determined by a free market and the rule of law, the success of a business is dependent on the favoritism that is shown to it by the ruling government in the form of tax breaks, government grants and other incentives.

Investopedia

I recall back in the Bush Administration when I heard the crony capitalist label hurled with regard to Halliburton.  The Vice President had been the CEO and now the administration was giving no-bid contracts to a division of Halliburton.  There were also claims that the administration was an ally of Big Oil; would we rather have government as an enemy of Big Oil?  Regardless of the details of these cases, the question is where are all the folks who were so scandalized by crony capitalism now that the President Obama is practicing it with abandon?

Let us consider the cases:

Chrysler & GM: These two car companies would have gone bust if not for government intervention.  The free market and the rule of law were not responsible for the success of these companies.  The UAW, which was a big contributor to Obama, made out rather well thanks to the bail out.  This particular case is shared with Bush who embezzled government funds to save the companies until Obama could embezzle much more to ‘save’ them.  I say ‘embezzle’ because the Congress specifically refused to pass legislation to save the two car companies so neither president had legal authority to raid TARP.

Fisker Automotive: This car company received $528 million in loan guarantees.  This company is still in business so there is yet hope the taxpayer won’t get stuck with the tab.

Solyndra: The most infamous of the Green Energy jobs initiative, this company had investors who were big fundraisers for Obama.  The Obama Administration granted $535 million in loan guarantees to the company that folded shortly thereafter.

Abound Solar: Fortunately for the taxpayer, this company folded before it used all of the $400 million in loan guarantees.  Thus, it only cost the taxpayer $70 million.

Solar Trust: Offered $2 billion in guarantees, this company filed for chapter 11 before the taxpayer was soaked.

Energy Conversion Devices: Another solar company, it received $13.3 million in stimulus before it went bankrupt.

Ener1: This Company got $118 million in stimulus in 2009 but filed for bankruptcy in 2011.

Beacon Power Corp.: This one got only $43 million in loan guarantees before going bust in 2011.

SpectraWatt: Yet another solar company though this one didn’t even reach the $1 million mark before going under.

Raser Technologies: A geothermal company that got $33 million in stimulus but, shockingly enough, it went bust in 2011.

With the exception of Fisker, these companies would all have failed – and cost the taxpayer nothing – had they been left to the mercies of the often-maligned free market.  Instead, thanks to the president’s fascination with non-economic renewable energy and/or indebtedness to donors/fundraisers, the taxpayer was forced to support these failing models.

Government should not bail out or give loans to business.  If a company cannot convince us to voluntarily invest, why should the government coerce us to invest via our tax dollars?  That goes for ethanol, mohair, trains, airlines, flood insurance, etc.  Let the free market do its job and leave crony capitalism to the Europeans.

Unarmed Citizens are Easier to Kill

Already we hear calls for gun control in the wake of the Batman theater killings.  Why does anyone think that will solve anything?  As the famous saying goes: if you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns.  Let's disarm the people so they can't defend themselves and then we won't have these sorts of massacres.  Show me a US city with stringent gun control laws and I'll show you a city with a high murder rate.

As I live in Texas, I regularly hear news reports on would-be robbers and burglars getting shot by armed homeowners.  And there was the recent story where a 14 year-old in Arizona shot an intruder to protect his younger siblings.  Gun control would disarm these civilians who successfully protected themselves.  Criminals, being criminals, will not be so eager to obey the law.  Moreover, if they know the citizens are disarmed, they are more likely to harass them, not less likely.  Thought experiment: Town A has outlawed all guns while Town B is known for lots of gun owners.  Which town is a home invasion criminal more likely to target?

Whenever the gun control debate arises, I think of a Chuck Norris movie from the 80s.  A couple of hooligans with shotguns burst into a bar to rob the place only to discover this is the bar where ALL the cops go.  Every patron pulls out a gun and the would-be robbers are instantly subdued.  The scene was a bit of comedy in an otherwise serious film but it was also instructive.  When responsible people are armed, armed criminals are quickly dispatched.  When the people are disarmed, you get massacres.  Our problem is not too many criminals with guns but not enough law-abiding citizens with guns.

As always, I am distrustful of government.  Government loves to disarm the citizens because then it is much more difficult for the citizens to resist government.  A government that knows the citizens are disarmed will naturally become more tyrannical.

Again with the Birth Certificate

Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona has finished his investigation and declared that Obama's birth certificate is fraudulent.  Sigh.  At this point, it doesn't matter.  He ran for president already and was elected.  End of story.  For those unhappy with that state of affairs, there is another election soon.  Go vote.

For the sake of argument, let us suppose that Obama really was born in Kenya and he really did get a forged birth certificate.  What could be done?  The only route would be to impeach him for High Crimes and Misdemeanors.  That is not going to happen.  Even if the Republican House voted on articles of impeachment (as they did with Clinton), there is NO chance that a majority Democrat senate is going to convict a Democrat President.

This is a pissing contest between the Obama Administration and Sheriff Arpaio.  The administration has put Sheriff Joe's department under investigation.  Obama has also sued the state of Arizona for trying to enforce Federal immigration laws.  Arpaio's investigation is his way of fighting back in an unfair fight.  It is a wasted effort because no one cares about the birth certificate anymore, except maybe Donald Trump.  Those people who aren't going to vote for Obama on account of the Birther conspiracy don't need further convincing.

Hopefully, this is the last we'll hear of Obama's birth certificate.  If the election is a referendum on his birth certificate, he'll be reelected in a landslide.  But if it's a referendum on the economy...

Tax the Rich?

Just read an article that explains how the rich need government more than the rest of us.  You can find it here:

http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/13605

I have some issues with this.  Of the five 'benefits' that government provides, only one of them is particularly costly: Security in the form of the military.  The military is the third largest item on the budget each year, trailing Medicare and Social Security.  Nonetheless, let's go through them one by one.

1. Security: Back in the 18th Century, rich people were attacked by mobs so they get more benefit from police, military, and emergency services.  Those of us who aren't rich don't benefit from these things.  Oh, we don't?  The argument presented is nonsense and drifts into unsupported claims of police attacking the poor to make the wealthy feel safe.

2. Laws and Deregulations: Okay, just the title makes my head hurt.  Make up your mind on this one.  Deregulation is the removal of laws.  So, the rich benefit when laws are passed and when they are repealed.  Wow!  Sheer genius!  Government is a protection racket.  Legislatures pass laws that prod business into supporting the legislators who in turn write loopholes in those very laws.  The problem is not with the rich but with the corrupt legislators.  As an example, back in the 90s, Microsoft spent nothing on lobbying the central government.  Then, suddenly, Microsoft was sued for giving away a product free with their operating system.  Having learned their lesson, Microsoft now spends millions on lobbying (i.e. bribes to Congressmen).

3. Research and Infrastructure: The text presumes everyone is getting the use of airports, seaports, the energy grid, and so forth for free.  The more you use, the more you pay.  As for public schools, the rich frequently don't use them (their kids often go to private school) but are still forced to pay for the public schools.  As for the research stuff, the government should get out of R and D and let the private sector do it.  As for infrastructure, Indiana privatized a tollroad and balanced its budget.  Rather than pay for roads indirectly through taxes, we could pay for them directly (and less expensively) with tolls.

4. Subsidies: 'Tax expenditures' is one of the silliest notions ever presented.  The idea is that if the government doesn't take your money, that's an expenditure on its part.  In other words, your money really belongs to the government and it is only through the generosity of the government that you keep as much as you do.  Your take-home pay is a 'tax expenditure' of the government.  Ha!  As for the actual checks sent to corporations, let's just stop that and call it even.  The idea that we need to tax the rich so we can cut them a check is circular reasoning.  Stop the checks and stop complaining.

5. Disaster Costs: On the one hand, we need to more heavily tax corporations (like Exxon) to pay for oil spills and on the other hand we need to tax corporations (the financial industry) to pay for bail outs.  I have a simple solution for the later: no bailouts.  Corporations need to fail if there is going to be any responsibility.  Failure teaches discipline while bailouts teach irresponsibility.  Let them fail so they go out of business and trouble us no further.  As for taxing corporations for cleanup, that is just a different route to taxing citizens.  Corporations do not pay taxes, they collect them for the government.  Taxing a corporation is just a variation of the sales tax.  No one thinks the 7Eleven is paying the sales tax, it just collects it for the government.  Better to penalize the corporation that spills, perhaps driving it out of business; future corporations will invest more in preventing such disasters if only to remain in business.

Common Sense: Government wants as much money as it can get from the populace.  It will tell you the Earth is warming and we need to tax.  It will tell you that the infrastructure is failing and we need to tax.  It will tell you that people don't have health insurance and we need to tax.  The government will always have a new cause that requires funds.  Moreover, government understands divide and conquer.  Government says it will only tax the top 1%.  Or maybe the top 5%.  Or the top 10%.  It is counting on the rest of us to gladly take money from Bill Gates or Warren Buffet that can go into our pocket.

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

Alexander Tytler, 1787

Internet Kill Switch

The White House has finally responded to criticism over US President Barack Obama’s hushed signing last week of an Executive Order that allows the government to command privately-owned communication systems and acknowledges its implications.

http://rt.com/usa/news/white-house-systems-order-142/

Let's do a thought experiment: In what situation would the government need to take over all communications - including the internet and wireless cell phones - in the country.  What sort of emergency would justify such an action by the central government?  What if a nuke destroyed a city?  Would it be in the national security interest of the US to cut off all communication among the citizens?  No.  How about if there was an invasion?  A Jihadi army suddenly landed on the beach and started laying waste?  No, still no good reason to take over communications.  What if hackers figured out a way to make every computer display "America sucks" in flashing letters?  No, because that isn't even possible.  And what about the cell phones?  When would the government need to assume control of AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint?  I can think of no good reason for the government to cut off our communication but I can think of some bad reasons.

Totalitarian governments - like Iran or China - seek every means possible to control communication and access to information among their populace.  If people don't know what the government is doing then it is hard for them to stop it.  An informed populace is a prerequisite of a representative republic but an uninformed populace is a blessing to a dictatorship.  If our government had good reasons, why was there a "hushed signing" of the order?

Regardless of your party affiliation, the idea of the central government having the ability to sieze control of communications should be concerning.  One should always be distrustful of government, regardless of which party is in office.

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

George Washington

Executive rewrites Law again

The Obama Administration has rewritten the 1996 welfare reform law.  No, it wasn't Congress - that would be the legislative branch - that rewrote the law but the executive - that would be the branch responsible for enforcing laws passed by the legislative branch - that rewrote it.  As I said in a recent post: who needs Congress?

The central part of the law was a requirement to work or seek work in order to receive government assistance.  The program was a huge success, cutting in half the number of recipients as they transitioned to work.  It was a signature achievement of Bill Clinton and showed him crossing party lines for the benefit of the country.  After all, is it not preferable that citizens support themselves?  Apparently not.  So, why change the law?

We have reached a point where almost half the population receives a check from the government.  Also, half the population pays no income tax (though they still have payroll taxes for programs such as Social Security) and thus have little interest in keeping income taxes low.  These citizens are naturally inclined to support those who promise to keep the checks coming or even expand the checks at the expense of the 50% who are funding those checks.  Removing the work requirement will surely expand the number of people on the welfare rolls and those new enrollees will be inclined to support the candidate who supports them.  President Obama thinks that the country has just about reached the tipping point where more citizens receive payments than pay taxes and is goosing the number by removing the work requirement.

If he is right that there are more takers than makers, the death spiral will commence.  The majority will vote to drain the wealth of the minority in a process that can only end in economic collapse.  But, by the time that happens, Obama's second term will be long over.  The only future that matters is the next election.

To recap: President Obama has lawlessly rewritten law to encourage more people to be supported by government while unemployed to improve his election chances.  Hope and Change!

Killing Lincoln

I recently read the Bill O'Reilly book and found it both engaging and informative.  The book is told from the point of view of the central figures of the conspiracy and the end of the Civil War.  At times, the book follows John Wilkes Booth as he plots a kidnapping and then, after Lee surrenders, decides an assassination is the way to go.  Though the bad guy, the book is not unfair to him.  It explains his reasons and what he thought would happen.  Of course, as with most assassinations, it did not turn out as he had hoped; the South did not rise again.  At least not yet.

When following Lincoln, there is this annoying habit of opening with how many days he has to live.  "The man who has only 12 days to live" met with this General or talked to that Secretary.  It was an interesting device the first couple of times but got old quickly.  Lincoln, as one might expect, comes off extremely well.  I did find the numerous premonitions of his death to be hard to swallow.  Sure, he might have had a nightmare of being assassinated (I suspect many Presidents do) but the book has an amazing number of reports that hint at assassination.  Though it is surely in the historical record, I suspect some of this after-the-fact reports were a bit of rewriting by the reporters.

When the book was first published, there was much ado about inaccuracies and its being banned from Ford's Theater.  That's pretty harsh.  That made me curious to read it.  Anyway, I have read several accounts of the conspiracy and the book meshes perfectly with accounts from other 'reputable' historians I have read.  The errors, such as they were, are hardly of note.  For instance, O'Reilly mentions General Grant and Lincoln meeting in the Oval Office.  Well, there was no Oval Office until 1909.  The book is a fraud!  Bad history!  Or then there is the complaint that O'Reilly says the distance from the Presidential box in Ford's Theater to the stage is 9 feet when it is actually 11.5 feet.  Oh, what a travesty!  How dare such tripe be published!  The play that Lincoln was watching had only appeared in Ford's 7 times, not 8 as O'Reilly claims.  Oh, the horror!  Having read a great many history books, I can assure you that such errors are not uncommon.  I read a biography of James Knox Polk that claimed his son was at his death bed; he and his wife were childless.  I read a book on the Mexican War that mistakenly reported Archibald Gillespie's name as Arthur Gillespie.  These were the errors I knew because this is an area where I am well versed.  I suspect I missed the true minutia.

The tiny errors change the narrative not a bit.  The history that O'Reilly and his cowriter reveal is absolutely true.  That he follows the characters makes it read more like a thriller than a history book, a thriller where we know the end.  Or do we?  I suspect that most readers, lacking my enthusiasm for history, will be amazed.  A good read and I recommend it.

End of Constitutional Government?

With both the Obamacare and the Arizona rulings, the Supreme Court has demonstrated its bias toward the central government against the states and the people.  The Tenth Amendment is meaningless to at least 5 members of the court.  The idea of limited government is likewise a forgotten aspect of the Constitution to a majority.

In the wake of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, the Continental Congress set to establishing a national government.  However, the Congress and the States had such fear of a powerful central government that they created a weak, virtually toothless one under the Articles of Confederation.  The Articles provided no power to tax so the central government could only request money from the several states.  Sadly, the Articles proved insufficient for the needs of the new country.  Shays’ Rebellion demonstrated a need for a somewhat stronger though still limited federal government.  A convention had already been called to do just that.  Though initially intended to merely amend the Articles, the convention drafted a new Constitution.   This proved to be controversial with the likes of Patrick “Give me Liberty or Give me Death” Henry, Samuel Adams, and future President James Monroe arguing against stronger central government.  The Anti-Federalists demanded assurances that the government would be limited and provided for the Bill of Rights.

This brief history lesson should more than demonstrate the Framers intent to have a limited and constrained Federal Government.  It had powers enumerated within the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8) and the Bill of Rights was added just to emphasize the limits of government.  The Constitution is a document that is distrustful of government.

So, how is it that Constitutional scholars with decades of law experience are utterly unaware of this?  It is not that they are unaware but they know where their bread is buttered.  The Supreme Court is at the Federal level.  If they hewed to the Constitution, the federal government would be forced to shrink dramatically and thus the Court’s purview would likewise shrink.  Few people voluntarily surrender power, which is why George Washington is so great.  John Roberts has tasted power and likes it.  He has been corrupted.

The Congress passed a law that was clearly unconstitutional.  It isn’t the first time and it won’t be the last.  The President signed that unconstitutional law.  Again, not the first time nor the last.  And, the Supreme Court has confirmed its constitutionality.  The final arbiter, We the People, will decide the issue through elections or let it slide.  If we let it slide, limited government is over, a government of laws not men becomes a memory.

The Tenth Amendment

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.

And there you have the 10th Amendment.  Does it have meaning anymore?  The very statement of the amendment presupposes that the Congress has been delegated powers that are enumerated within the Constitution.  Anything not enumerated is to be left to the States and the people.  It is a very simple amendment that speaks volumes.  Like the 2nd Amendment, it is loathed by those who seek to empower the central government.  Health care, retirement savings, education, and countless other aspects of life are nowhere listed in the Constitution and yet, despite the clear limit set by the 10th Amendment, government has seized control to varying degrees in all of these areas.

I have found myself asking those who favor Obamacare to explain what limit there is on government if it can do this?  Can it tax people who don't have gym memberships with the goal of addressing the obesity problem?  The reply is generally a roll of the eyes, as if my question is foolish.  Obviously, government isn't going to tax us if we don't get gym memberships.  How do you know?  What limits it from doing just that?  The 10th is a bright red line of a limit and it was breached more than a century ago.  Like the human appendix, it is a vestigial part of the Constitution that no longer has a function.  However, it was never repealed and could resume its purpose to limit the government.

The Founders had intended for We the People to be the final arbiters of Constitutionality.  They provided that we could vote the bums out and, failing that, also provided that we had guns to establish new government just as they had.

National Debt eclipses Personal Debt

As of today, the US Debt per citizen is $50,433 and rising by about $12 a day.  The Personal Debt (mortgages, car loans, student loans, credit card debt, etc.) per citizen is $50,428 and falling by about $7 a day.  Imagine all the outstanding debts you have and then consider you owe that same amount or more if we are to pay the national debt.  Let's look at that over time:

When my grandfather was 2 in 1910, his portion of the debt was $28.76.

When my father was born in 1940, his portion of the debt was $325.

When I was 3 in 1970, my portion of the debt was $1,914.

In 1980, the per citizen portion was $4,106.

In 1990, $13,000.

Of course, there has been inflation and today's dollars aren't as valuable as yesterday's dollars.  Still, $30 in 1910 was not the equivalent of $50,000 today.  That $325 from 1940 would be about $4,000 today.   In 1990, the median income for a high school grad was $26,000.  In 2009, it was $32,900.  So, earnings have increased by 26% but per citizen debt has increased by 388%.  Does anyone else see a problem here?

What happened in the last hundred years to explain this explosion of debt?  Many would tell you that it is the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  They would be wrong.  The problem is entitlements that have gotten increasingly generous and are on autopilot to grow.  Entitlements are a cancer that is going to kill the patient.

Overwhelming debt has done the European countries no favors, as we can plainly see.  And yet, we are racing down that same path with some naive notion that it will work out for us.  It won't.  We are the moth and government utopia is the flame.  Big government has NEVER worked out well for its citizens but we're going to see if we can be the exception.