FreedomsAdvocate.com

2012-02-09T11:34:00.001-05:00

Israel's Peres sends message of peace to Iranians http://ping.fm/rRujq

2012-02-08T23:55:00.001-05:00

States Are Refusing To Lock Up Americans Without Due Process http://ping.fm/rirIL

2012-02-04T16:09:00.001-05:00

[Regulatory Tyranny: CRA 4 Telecoms] First free government cell phones, now free internet! http://ping.fm/pnRsI

Iranian Threats; Ck out all the US military bases surrounding Iran.

2012-02-01T17:56:00.001-05:00

Iranian Threats; Ck out all the US military bases surrounding Iran. http://ping.fm/wSrin

Dubai Police Chief: 'U.S. Policy Is the No. 1 Security Threat' to the Gulf States' (new link)

2012-02-01T17:07:00.001-05:00

Dubai Police Chief: 'U.S. Policy Is the No. 1 Security Threat' to the Gulf States' (new link) http://ping.fm/c3Z4O

BOMBSHELL: Here's A Tape Of Newt Gingrich Endorsing Obamacare

2012-01-30T17:45:00.001-05:00

BOMBSHELL: Here's A Tape Of Newt Gingrich Endorsing Obamacare http://ping.fm/vshMr

Syria Is Importing Iranian Snipers To Murder Anti-Government Protesters

2012-01-27T17:37:00.001-05:00

Syria Is Importing Iranian Snipers To Murder Anti-Government Protesters http://ping.fm/HMKZG

Controversy in Egypt over Newly Established 'Religious Police' [al-mutawa'ah]

2012-01-26T17:46:00.001-05:00

Controversy in Egypt over Newly Established 'Religious Police' [al-mutawa'ah] http://ping.fm/fF1js

Judge: Americans can be forced to decrypt their laptops

2012-01-23T20:31:00.001-05:00

RT @AnonymousIRC @Kallisti Judge: Americans can be forced to decrypt their laptops http://cnet.co/xq5oa5

[Big Brother: The ISP Police] SOPA Now Dead Hail The Rise Of HR 1981

2012-01-22T11:43:00.001-05:00

[Big Brother: The ISP Police] SOPA Now Dead Hail The Rise Of HR 1981 http://goo.gl/UuI1a

Islamists win 70% of Egypt People's Assembly party list seats

2012-01-21T11:01:00.001-05:00

Islamists win 70% of Egypt People's Assembly party list seats http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/33/100/32287/Elections-/News/Islamists-win--of-Egypt-Peoples-Assembly-party-lis.aspx

This Horror Story Shows How SOPA Would Be Bad News For Startups

2012-01-18T18:23:00.001-05:00

This Horror Story Shows How SOPA Would Be Bad News For Startups http://ping.fm/HDqnW

Iranian lawmaker says Obama proposed talks

2012-01-18T11:22:00.001-05:00

Iranian lawmaker says Obama proposed talks http://ping.fm/Po8DO

Press TV: Barak: Israeli attack on Iran 'far away'

2012-01-18T11:07:00.001-05:00

Press TV: Barak: Israeli attack on Iran 'far away' http://ping.fm/ct3Db

Iraq: Sunni-backed leader: Crisis tearing Iraq apart

2012-01-18T10:58:00.001-05:00

Iraq: Sunni-backed leader: Crisis tearing Iraq apart http://ping.fm/t8mpR

Ron Paul: State rights to trump federal law would help

2012-01-17T14:52:00.001-05:00

Ron Paul: State rights to trump federal law would help http://ping.fm/Gg3XY

Press TV: Saudis hold protest rally in Awamiyah

2012-01-15T11:40:00.001-05:00

Press TV: Saudis hold protest rally in Awamiyah http://ping.fm/a2Jus

UK: Europe will adopt sanctions on Iranian oil

2012-01-15T11:15:00.001-05:00

UK: Europe will adopt sanctions on Iranian oil http://ping.fm/6zryo

Iran warns Gulf Arabs on oil

2012-01-15T10:45:00.001-05:00

Iran warns Gulf Arabs on oil http://ping.fm/1C3q4

Iran: White House renews 'vow' to shut Gitmo

2012-01-10T09:27:00.001-05:00

Iran: White House renews 'vow' to shut Gitmo http://bit.ly/xovL7G

Apparently, 'Historian' Newt 'ethanol subsidies for all' Gingrich doesn't know hemp=pot.

2012-01-09T19:01:00.001-05:00

Apparently, 'Historian' Newt 'ethanol subsidies for all' Gingrich doesn't know hemp=pot. http://ping.fm/20J7l libertarian tcot tiot p2

The Egyptian Uprising Is The Equivalent Of Elephants Flying

2012-01-09T10:49:00.001-05:00

The Egyptian Uprising Is The Equivalent Of Elephants Flying http://ping.fm/GhhmT

Iran enrichment site may be in operation

2012-01-08T15:45:00.001-05:00

Iran enrichment site may be in operation http://bit.ly/xb1BTt

2012-01-08T15:41:00.001-05:00

Venezuelan consul ordered to leave U.S. http://bit.ly/vZ5245

2012-01-08T15:15:00.001-05:00

Reason: Obama Finally Does Something Right on Immigration http://goo.gl/mag/39BD3

2012-01-07T20:48:00.001-05:00

The Best Way To Reduce Risk In The Banking System Is To Stop Rewarding It http://ping.fm/0FGcN

2012-01-07T15:43:00.001-05:00

http://goo.gl/dYD7u Iran welcomes US rescue of nationals from pirates

2012-01-07T13:03:00.001-05:00

In elections, jobless trend matters more than rate. http://goo.gl/7ZfNC

2012-01-06T19:16:00.001-05:00

Mideast Expert, Ron Paul Agree: U.S. Actions Make War with Iran Likely http://ping.fm/JQc2c

2012-01-06T19:03:00.001-05:00

Soldier Who Spoke Out for Ron Paul Could Face Trouble http://ping.fm/g2gR7 libertarian RonPaul tcot tiot

The Ron Paul Newsletters: Turn The Tables

2011-12-22T20:40:00.000-05:00

I guess it shouldn't surprise me, now that Ron Paul is rapidly advancing in the polls, that the 'racist' Ron Paul newsletters of the 1980's and 1990's have again achieved national prominence. (for those who don't know what I am talking about, Ron Paul had a paid, investment newsletter published in his name which sometimes used dubious racial and sexual stereotypes in the content.) It is clear from the way Dr Paul has been handling the incessant questions of a hostile press about the newsletters that he considers them a non-issue and a distraction from his message. He just wants to get on to issues that impact American voters today. After all, he has--repeatedly--disavowed them and stated that they were written for him and he never read them. In this recent clip one might even be able to discern a bit of embarrassment:

As a longtime supporter I can certainly sympathize with the good Doctor, but I think for several reasons he is responding incorrectly. He needs to turn the tables and bring it up in every media interview, campaign appearance, and floor speech he gives. Think I am nuts? Read on:

The way the issue stands right now--and the way the media has spun it is that Ron Paul is dodging the issue. The media smell blood in the water, and they will continue to attack until they have destroyed him. For one because he represents everything they despise and fear, all the while maintaining that they are just doing their job. Since they will bring it up anyway--at least at first--Dr Paul needs to bring it up himself. And then use it as a platform to expand on his message of individual liberty. If he can successfully turn it from a perceived weakness into a strength, the media will run from it as fast as they can. Meanwhile, he controls the message and gets it out as he wants it presented.

What kind of platform can 'racist' newsletters be used for? I can think of several and I am certain others can think of more. My favorite goes something like this:

Evil Reporter: "Congressman Paul, how could you have allowed someone to publish newsletters in your name which contained hateful, racist language back in the 1980's and 1990's?"
Good Doctor: "Well, as I have stated repeatedly, I disavow any racist or sexist language that was used in those newsletters. If I had read them at the time, they would never have been published. It was 20 or 30 years ago, and I was busy in my practice delivering babies and raising my family. When help writing them was offered, I accepted and never really looked at the actual published content. But you know, regardless of how distasteful they could be, it really shows just how long this class warfare using the power of coercion--government--has been going on. After the civil war, government power was used discriminate against blacks. Then in the 1960's as a sort of dubious compensation, I guess, government power was used to discriminate against whites. With such rampant governmentally forced legal discrimination, is it any wonder the writer was predicting a race war--"
Evil Reporter: "So you think there will be a race war?"
Good Doctor: "Good heavens no! I have never thought that to begin with; the American people are too good and too smart for that. But it does mean we must get back to the rule of law! Government and laws which favor one group over another causes friction between social groups. It causes the problem. My message--the message of liberty--is one law for all. That is what the 'Rule of Law' as the founders understood it means. That is what the Constitution stands for. Regardless of if you are a Congressman or the President of some Too-Big-To-Fail Bank--or simply an unemployed carpenter or a college student. The same rules must apply to all. Both in economics and in the law."

"People get along just fine until the government gets involved.

Anyway, I'm sure you get the idea. I welcome your suggestions.

Bottom line: Ron Paul must own this issue. He cannot shy away from it however distasteful. And even if this seems too difficult to pull off, in my opinion it is worth a try, since Ron Paul's candidacy could well be buried by this issue otherwise.There are still too many undecided, ill-informed or hoodwinked voters who do not realize that the ideas presented in those newsletters are alien to Ron Paul's basic philosophy.

Ron Paul SMS

2011-12-06T21:57:00.001-05:00

Made a Ron Paul SMS notification from his TV ads: If you want it (.mp3) you can get it off SkyDrive:

https://skydrive.live.com/redir.aspx?cid=c05a88ca3ac8b664&resid=C05A88CA3AC8B664!1697&parid=C05A88CA3AC8B664!137

Enjoy!

The Single Best Thing About a Ron Paul Presidency

2011-09-10T23:25:00.000-04:00

I have been a supporter of Ron Paul since January 2007. That was just before he started his exploratory committee for his run in 2008. I wrote an article about my experiences supporting Ron Paul on the ‘inter-webs’ back then, which you can read here. Needless to say, I am still a supporter and would vote for him if he can just get through the Republican Primary.

However, I have been having doubts that he is up to the job of President. After watching the last couple of debates, he is obviously not as sharp as he was during the 2008 election cycle. If you doubt this, simply go to YouTube and compare his performances during those debates to the most current ones. It should be obvious.

But I think I have come up with a great solution. And a solution that would still let Ron Paul accomplish the most important job he could ever hope to do for this country: Vetoing legislation and repealing regulations.

He simply needs to draft Rand as his Vice Presidential running mate. Rand could handle the ‘heavy lifting’ of the day-to-day performance while Ron could be there to fulfill the explicit Constitutional requirements of the President. Just think how wonderful it would be to have every bill congress passes vetoed—for four whole years. Bliss!

Shear Bliss.

Sandy Springs, GA: Privatization of Government Services

2011-04-16T19:52:00.003-04:00

A few days ago I posted a new Reason video on the city of Sandy Springs, GA. I have been following Sandy Springs since about 2008. If you don’t know the story, Sandy Springs was newly incorporated in 2005, and the committee chose to outsource the majority of services to private enterprises. If you know little about it, the video is here:

Long story, short: I posted the video on one of my County Commissioners FaceBook wall. Popular response was ok, mostly for the idea. One person, spoke out strongly against it, with a cautionary story about the potential problems implicit in outsourcing. A link which I hope will work to the whole thread is here: http://www.facebook.com/marksharpe/posts/208112665880192

The same individual posted an article that spoke of the theoretical flaws in ‘privatization’. See it here: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Privatization.htm

So, if you have watched the video, and read the above article, here is my response.

Chris,
Interesting article. I do have a couple of problems with some of the arguments, however. They just don't seem to hold up. For example, the author tries to show that government and business are
substitutes for one another. That makes no sense: From the consumer perspective, if business offers
Read more »

The Politicization of Civility

2011-04-07T20:32:00.000-04:00

In the immediate aftermath of the Representative Gabrielle Giffords' shooting in Tucson, Arizona, the left predictably began pointing fingers at their normal targets on the right—Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin—claiming that they inspired the primary suspect, Jared Loughner, to attempt to kill her. After the facts began to emerge and seemed to indicated that Loughner had no real political orientation, the left quickly began to obfuscate their error by transitioning to generalities decrying the rising tide of incivility in our public discourse. With calls that echoed GHW Bush’s call for a ‘kinder and gentler nation,’ the left derided the right for its ‘lock and load rhetoric’. The right responded with historical examples of how uncivil political discourse has often been in the past.

The one thing both sides seem to miss is that the growth of government, itself, will cause a systemic increase in incivility in our public discourse.

Read more »

Rick Scott: Bad poll numbers, Oh no!

2011-04-06T20:07:00.000-04:00

This going to be more of a statement than an article, so don't expect any links. I figure you can find all the backup you want or need by simply going to the local 'news' reporting.

Today, the Florida press was gleefully reporting that their propaganda campaign against Rick Scott is finally supported by a poll. They have been working to erode the common sense of the Florida voter since Rick Scott announced his candidacy. The question for me remains whether the Florida press has been out to get Scott because of the well-deserved disdain he shows for them, or because of his rejection of their leftist agenda.

Don't get me wrong, Scott has not done everything right, but then, with all the problems created by government--local, state and federal--in Florida, who could do it all right? I will say that he is attempting to fix things as fast as he can, and his fixes tend to be more logical than any in recent history--including Jeb Bush's. He just does not cater to the press nearly as well. Bush 'played' the press; Scott doesn't. But is that his job? I don't think so.

The press apparently does.

Related to this ongoing propaganda campaign are the comments--better described as snipes--by lefties in response to positive comments on the various press posts regarding Scott's actions. The leftists all post a variant of the same concept: "How can you like what Scott is doing? Can't you see the harm he is doing to you?" It is amazing how many of these types of posts I have seen in the last few weeks. My answer has always been, "No, I can't. Tell me, how he is hurting me?"

Most of the vituperative answers I get to that query are not worth the time it takes to write them down, but they all tend to echo the idea of unfair reductions in services/compensation. Unfair is the operative word. Most include two basic concepts (usually in the same post):

a) Having to pay anything for government services is somehow 'unfair' and far too expensive for the average Floridian to afford.

b) Whatever Florida government employees are paid is somehow 'unfair,' and far too little for the valuable services they provide.

Maybe I am being too picky but it appears to be an argument for 'something for nothing'. Not very logically consistent--nor even possible--but this is the kool aid that the Florida press is peddling because Rick Scott ignores them. Wanna sip?

Updated: Justice Stephen Breyer's View of the 2nd Amendment

2011-02-24T20:37:00.000-05:00

Here is a 13-minute, Fox News Sunday interview with US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. Justice Breyer is promoting his latest book. Such interviews are rare and Breyer discusses his view of the proper method of Constitution interpretation. Breyer's defense of his dissent from Heller is classic. He begins by claiming that Madison was compelled to included the 2nd Amendment in 1789--after the Constitution was already ratified--because his opponents would call up the state militias and nationalize them. Next he claims that the majority of historians support his view. The intellectual dishonesty of the man is chilling. This is a must see.

If you think his claims regarding Madison's objectives for the 2nd Amendment are accurate, please read 'Why DC's Gun Law is Unconstitutional'

02/24/2011 Update: David Young’s outstanding rebuttal above provides a high level review of the critical events during the ratification of the Bill of Rights, but it is of necessity somewhat short on specific references. I therefore thought to do some of my own research into the specific issue of Madison’s intent when he introduced the Bill of Rights in the first Congress. Based on Young’s clues, I easily found a supporting source. In ‘The Bill of Rights: A Documentary History, Volume II’, (Bernard Schwartz, 1971, Chelsea House,) beginning on page 764, Schwartz writes that

[During the Virginia State Ratifying Convention, on June 25, 1788, after the Federalists had defeated Patrick Henry’s effort to require modifications and amendments before ratification, the delegates voted to ratify and recommend amendments after the fact.] The next day, a committee was appointed to prepare and report such amendments as by them shall be deemed necessary, to be recommended. Both [George] Mason and [Patrick] Henry were placed on the drafting committee (along with [James] Madison, [John] Marshall, and [George] Wythe) and were able to secure the origin Henry proposals, though only by way of recommendation for subsequent amendments. On June 27, the committee reported a proposed federal Declaration or Bill of Rights of 20 articles to be added to the Constitution, as well as 20 other amendments to the constitutional text. The Convention agreed to the committee report, and enjoined “it upon their representatives [Madison, of course, was one] in Congress to exert all their influence, and use all reasonable and legal methods, to obtain a ratification of the foregoing alterations and provisions.”

(page 842) The 17th item of Virginia’s proposed ‘federal Declaration of Bill of Rights’ is

17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper , natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

It clearly indicates an individual right. In addition, it is highly unlikely to me that Madison—who sat on the drafting committee—would allow such a clear declaration to be included in the committee report if he was against it. It is also inconceivable to me that Madison’s sole concern in proposing the Bill of Rights was in regard to threats of militia nationalization, given that he had specific guidance from the convention ‘to exert all [his] influence, and use all reasonable and legal methods, to obtain a ratification of the foregoing alterations and provisions’ which included a clear individual right to keep and bear arms.

Florida's High Speed Rail: The case of California

2011-02-10T20:54:00.000-05:00

California's High Speed Rail (HSR) is in trouble. Since we are about to embark on our own HSR project here in Florida, a good question for Floridians to ask is 'are there any lessons that can be drawn for the proposed Tampa-Orlando HSR?' Several recent studies seem to indicate that there are.

The California project is for a HSR line from San Francisco to Los Angeles. In 2008, California voters approved a $9 billion bond issue which was based on an estimated cost of $33 billion. The $33 billion was based on a business plan that was release in November 2008 by the California High Speed Rail Authority. A few months earlier, in September 2008 the Reason Foundation had released ‘The California High Speed Rail Proposal: A Due Diligence Report.’

The Reason study identified at least two major deficiencies in the numbers that were given to the voters: Estimated construction costs and ridership projections. Reason estimated construction costs at $65-81 billion. Likewise it concluded that the CHSRA ridership numbers were wildly over estimated: Reason's numbers were over 60% below the figures of the CHSRA. If Reason was right, the cost to California taxpayers would more than double for initial construction alone. Ridership projections would not come even close to paying for the ongoing operations and maintenance (O&M) costs. The Reason estimates were based on comparisons to real-world completed or ongoing HSR projects around the world. If they were correct, California taxpayers would, of course, be stuck with the bills not just for up-front construction overruns, but the O&M costs for years to come. (The US Defense Department routinely uses 70% as the O&M portion of the 'lifetime' cost of any generic project.) According to the Reason study

'Any failure to meet the Rail Authority's lofty ridership projections would force ticket-price increases, further cutting ridership, or require taxpayer subsidies to cover the financial shortfall, adding to future budget deficits. The due diligence report finds "the San Francisco-Los Angeles line alone by 2030 would suffer annual financial losses of up to $4.17 billion." '

After the ballot issue passed, a skeptical California legislature demanded a more in-depth cost analysis. In December 2009 the newly released CHSRA business plan raised the estimated construction costs to $43 billion and required higher fares.

In 2010, the California legislature again required an updated business plan by February 2011, which has since been delayed. On February 4, 2011, Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design (CARRD)--a group which describes itself as citizens who

'value transparency, accountability and oversight and believe local communities should be partners in designing transportation projects. We work to ensure that the public's interests are upheld and that all facets of the California High Speed Rail project follow both the spirit and letter of the law.'

released a statement which indicated that 'Our analysis, based solely on official and publicly available Authority documents, determines the current project costs are approximately $65 billion.' The CARRD construction estimate aligns with the bottom end of the 2008 Reason Foundation estimate. The ridership estimates have not yet been addressed by any other outside agencies, but since according to the Reason Foundation the estimate is so egregious that

'It appears that the CHSRA 2030 ridership projections are absurdly high—so much so that they could well rank among the most unrealistic projections produced for a major transport project anywhere in the world. Under a passenger-mile per route-mile standard, the CHSRA is projecting higher passenger use of the California system than is found on the Japanese and French HSR networks despite the fact that these countries have conditions that are far more favorable to the use of HSR.'

It is therefore highly likely that those estimates, too, will be 'revised.'

On January 11th 2011, the Reason Foundation released a study of the Tampa-Orlando HSR project. By far, it is a much smaller project. The official estimated costs for initial construction are $2.7 billion, of which Federal taxpayers will pay $2.4 billion. Beyond that, day-to-day operations and maintenance--as well as any construction cost overruns--will be paid for by Florida taxpayers. The Reason study identified for the Florida HSR project the same two areas--initial construction costs and ridership--as areas of risk:

1. Capital Cost Escalation: If construction cost projections prove overly optimistic, costs could increase substantially from the current estimates. The state of Florida would be responsible for virtually all of any such increase. This report estimates that the cost to Florida taxpayers could be $3 billion more than currently projected.

2. Operating Subsidy Liability: If ridership and revenue projections prove overly optimistic, it could become necessary for the state to provide an annual operating subsidy for the service. A state operating subsidy could also be necessitated by operating costs that are greater than projected. This risk could easily run into the hundreds of millions of dollars per year.

When Reason directly compared the construction costs of the California and Florida projects, adjusting for variations and using the figures from the 2009 CHSRA estimate of approximately $43 billion, it found 'the California project to be 111 percent more costly per mile than the Tampa to Orlando project ($67.8 million per mile compared to the projected $32.1 million per mile in Florida). This difference could indicate that the capital cost projection for the Tampa to Orlando high-speed rail project is exceedingly optimistic.' If California per mile cost is applied to the Tampa-Orlando project, the overall construction cost would rise to $5.7 billion--raising the cost to Florida taxpayers from approximately $300 million to $3.3 billion. And if Florida cancels the project after construction begins--say because of massive cost overruns--Floridians could be required to repay the Federal grants: $2.4 billion.

In general, the ongoing operations and maintenance costs are harder to predict, but the major element which determines if a project pays for itself is ridership. If actual revenue from passenger fares equal or exceed operations and maintenance costs no taxpayer subsidies will be needed. Ridership however is driven by the attractiveness of HSR as an alternative to other means of transportation. The Reason study determined that travel by the Tampa-Orlando HSR will take longer and cost more than travel by car, making it much less attractive to travelers and jeopardizing the ridership projections of the Florida Rail Enterprise. Given that historically ‘projected ridership on passenger rail projects averaged 65 percent above actual patronage,’ Reason estimated that Florida taxpayers could be faced with a bill for

‘operating losses of approximately $300 million in its first 10 years of operation (2015 through 2024). The system would not produce a profit for its first 23 years of operation (2015 through 2037), with accumulated losses of approximately $575 million.’

California is charging ahead with its HSR project since getting the bulk of Federal funding from the cancelled projects in Ohio and Wisconsin. Only time will tell, but given that historically construction costs have been massively underestimated and projected ridership has been massively overestimated—combined with the potential Federal bill of $2.4 billion if we choose to cancel the project due to significant cost increases—Floridians might want to ask Governor Scott to follow the lead of Ohio and Wisconsin and tell the Federal Government, ‘Thanks, but no thanks.’

Signs: alBraradei and the National Association for Change

2011-02-03T21:28:00.000-05:00

This is post two in my effort to trace the roots of all those professionally produced signs in the 'spontaneous' US demonstrations supporting ‘true democracy' and 'social justice' in Egypt. If you haven't seen the original post, go here (it's short.)
To sum up the story so far, I was able to find three organizations, ANSWER Coalition (AC), International Action Center (IAC), and the Egyptian Association for Change (EAC) which is part of Mohamed ElBaradei’s National Association for Change (NAC) that produced signs for the first US demonstrations. You can read about the radical and Marxist ties for AC and IAC here and here.
The EAC presents a different issue since it is both logical and understandable that it would support the recent uprising in Egypt. Its website uses no Marxist/Progressive code language; it freely admits its loose affiliation with the NAC, as well as its support for the seven points of reform that the NAC espouses (see translation below). To dig a bit deeper, I looked at alBaradei’s National Association for Change which is an Egyptian/international organization.

It is likewise understandable that Dr. alBaradei's NAC would support him. AlBaradei has presented himself to Egypt and the world as the alternative to Mubarak for well over a year. He has pointed out that changes to current Egyptian election laws must be implemented before he could even run for election. In light of the fact that there is no viable opposition party in Egypt--and that Mubarak and his puppet 'National Democratic Party' have done everything to include amending the Egyptian Constitution to insure that there is no opposition--an Egyptian of alBaradei's international standing may be the only hope that Egypt has at this point.
A lot has been made of the fact that alBaradei has had a longstanding discourse with the Moslem Brotherhood. For a person who has been essentially out of the country for nearly 30 years--with political ambitions in Egypt--it to be expected that he would 'cozy up' to the only influential political force in Egypt not aligned with Mubarak. At one time (2005), the Moslem Brotherhood held about 17% of the seats in the Egyptian Parliament. That is, until Mubarak decided they were getting too powerful. And considering the stated goals of the Moslem Brotherhood, Mubarak’s action might have been justifiable.
The Ikhwaan (the brothers), as the Moslem Brotherhood is named in Arabic, in an international organization of Islamists/Salafists which was founded in 1928 in Egypt. Many of the Islamic organizations throughout the world today are simply fronts which present a civilized face--that includes here in the United States--but few experts doubt their objective remains an Islamic Caliphate based on Sharia'a law. The Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has deep ties to Hamas, a well know Moslem Brotherhood group. In Egypt, the Moslem Brotherhood provides huge amounts of public aide directly to those who need it most. It is a proven method to gain grassroots support and has been used all over the Middle East, most recently by Hezbollah in Lebanon. The Moslem Brotherhood pioneered this method of coalition building at the grassroots level. So, although it us understandable that alBaradei would approach the only organized, politically powerful group in Egypt besides Mubarak's NDP, it is still cause for concern.
alBaradei's National Association for Change was established to build local and international support (coalitions) and leverage the internet and social networking. It is an international organization, and alBaradei's announcement on its Arabic-only homepage lays out its background and goals (this is my 'gist' translation only. I probably made numerous mistakes as it has been nearly 14 years since I even so much as looked at Arabic. A screen shot of the original homepage is below) :

Statement by Dr alBaradei, "Together We Will Change":
In the light of my meetings with all the various Egyptian political affiliations, religious men and women, and representatives of the general society and the young, I was touched by an almost unanimous need for change in Egypt. There was broad agreement on the need to unite all the voices calling for change under a National Association. They requested I be in the forefront and stand with them to ensure that the general framework of the association represents the whole range of calls for change.The main objective of the association is working to reach a political system based on true democracy and social justice. The first step on this road is to ensure basic guarantees for free and fair elections, whether legislative or presidential, elections which include all Egyptians and where there is equal opportunity for all. This will provide the safeguards and procedures which have been demanded by a broad spectrum of Egyptian society for many years, particularly:
1. End the state of emergency.
2. To enable the Egyptian judiciary to supervise the full electoral process as a whole.
3. Control of the election by local and international civil society organizations.
4. To provide equal opportunity/access in/to the media for all candidates, especially in presidential elections.
5. To enable Egyptians abroad to exercise their right to vote in embassies and consulates.
6. To ensure the right to stand in the presidential election without arbitrary restrictions in line with Egypt's obligations under the International Convention for Civil and Political Rights, and to limit the right to run for the presidency to two terms.
7. Elections by national number.
In order to attain some of these procedures and safeguards to amend articles 76, 77 and 88 of the Constitution as soon as possible.
I would like to emphasize in this regard that the doors of the "National Assembly for Change" are open to all Egyptians inside and outside Egypt who agree with the need to change starting with the achievement of the safeguards and procedures described, to calling special elections, to a new constitution that guarantees every Egyptian has the right to a dignified life, to beginning a comprehensive program of social and economic reform so that in the end it is the people who are the ultimate rulers.
Indeed, because the main goals of this association is not limited to changing the rules of running for president, or even who would run in the election; but because it is a quest to change the overall system by mobilizing popular support in a peaceful manner, that I have chosen Dr. Hassan Nafia, Professor of Political Science at Cairo University, to be the overall coordinator of the association. "Together We Will Change"

With the exception of the references to 'true democracy and social justice' there is little in this statement and these goals with which one could argue. And the goal of 'true democracy' in the case of Egypt--a titular democracy at best--is realistic and laudable goal. But as the day-to-day leader tends to define an organization, I looked into Dr. Hassan Nafia (Nafea). Nafia appears to be politically active and a somewhat old-school Arab Nationalist who cares about his country. He has expressed mildly pro-Syrian/anti-American sentiments about the rule of the democratic Syrian despot Bashar Assad, but has also irritated the anti-government forces in Sudan. If you want to get a better feel for him, he was interviewed by al-Jazeera in February 2010 regarding alBaradei. The whole video is easily worth watching. There is an article in an Egyptian newspaper, also from February 2010, on the 'activists' welcoming alBaradei at Cairo airport. Please notice two things; how little harassment there appears to be of these political activists who are blatantly showing their allegiance to alBaradei over a year ago; and please also notice how professional the signs are?

Demonstrations in US supporting democracy in Egypt organized by ‘extremist’ groups

2011-01-29T21:47:00.000-05:00

While reading up on the events in Egypt, my wife and I noticed that the signs used in a number of US demonstrations were very professional looking. Normally, spontaneous events—such as the tea party—have almost exclusively used hand-made signage. Not so in the demonstrations in Washington, San Francisco and New York today. There were hand-made signs, certainly, but a good number were very professional. Who made them?
After a little digging, it turns out that three organizations were responsible for those signs; ANSWER Coalition, International Action Center and the Egyptian Association For Change (EAC). Although the EAC did produce some of the printed signs, it is to be expected since they are a local chapter of Mohamed ElBaradei’s National Association for Change. Although ElBaradei’s group is left radical—they call for ‘true’ democracy and ‘social justice’—it will take a while to provide more information. I am having a bit of trouble with the translation of the web-site. (I am rusty!).
The other two organizations, ANSWER (‘Act Now to Stop War and End Racism’) Coalition and International Action Center are deeply involved and have long histories of radical and socialist/communist activities in the United States.

ANSWER Coalition has actively promoted the rallies. It even provided the signs. It has a well know radical background which includes ‘co-opting...anti-war rallies to push their larger agenda which includes ending capitalism…’ as well as their association with the Stalinist Workers World Party. ANSWER Coalition is linked with the International Action Center (IAC), which is thought to be a front group for International ANSWER, which is staffed by the Workers World Party. IAC was started by former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, and its National Co-Director is Brian Becker and Western Region Co-Director Richard Becker. Brian Becker, has been associated with the Answer Coalition, too. IAC’s radical background is documented here.
I spent a number of years living in Egypt, and I think it is a great country. Even back in the 1980’s when I was there, Mubarak’s government was corrupt. I fully support the Egyptian people’s efforts to wrest control of their destinies from the government. I just hope that they won’t be sold a bill of goods by organizations like the ANSWER Coalition and the International Action Center who want to substitute their totalitarian socialist ‘true’ democracy for liberty. The Egyptian people deserve better than substituting one dictatorship for another.

Who Governs in America?

2011-01-26T22:20:00.000-05:00

After watching the State of the Union and all the responses, I find that I am sick and tired of hearing about 'governing'. Every News show, every soundbite in the media talks about 'We were elected, and now we just have to govern.' Or some such nonsense. When exactly did this change occur in all the capitals around this nation that our representatives now think of themselves as our governors?
Yes, back during the Constitutional Convention one can read of some using the term--usually the Federalists like Hamilton I have to point out--but not nearly to the extent that one hears it today. When I hear the term 'govern', I think of kings, dictators, despots, commissars, czars (is there something to this, given our current penchant to dubbing un-elected bureaucrats with this title?), and totalitarians in general. Not my congressman
Read more »

Video: Niall Ferguson-Fiscal Crises and Imperial Collapses: Historical Perspective

2011-01-23T18:25:00.000-05:00

By far, this is one of the best videos I have seen regarding our current sovereign debt crisis. In May, 2010, the Peterson Institute for International Economics sponsored a lecture by Niall Ferguson, of Harvard Business School and the London School of Economics on the history of sovereign debt crises entitled: Fiscal Crises and Imperial Collapses: Historical Perspective on Current

Read more »

Reframing the Global Warming Argument

2011-01-16T22:24:00.000-05:00

I often get a chuckle from the rather transparent attempts by Global Warming True Believers to revive the national discourse on global warming. When frigid winters with record low temperatures continue to crop up and threaten to debunk their argument for massive spending to avert the impending disaster, they simply change the title from "Global Warming' to 'Climate Change' and hope no one notices. With the publication of reams of emails that debunk the very 'experts' who are doctoring the evidence and attempting to discredit and silence their skeptics, the effort shifts toward ignoring the evidence, finding new, still credible sources which justify their faith, and mischaracterizing the argument itself.
A blog post on Green.Blorge.com from Jan 13, 2011, Increased insurance claims my be due to climate change shows just how desparate the movement is apparently getting as they are now even willing to use the hated 'free market' and capitalism to bolster their arguments. (Who can doubt that the politicians--who are of course in the pocket of the insurance industry--will quickly fall in line.)
The article begins by informing us that insurance companies are reporting a dramatic increase in natural disasters.

As natural disasters have risen, so have insurance claims. That being the case, insurance companies are noticing trends that most of us are missing.

After accurately reporting the distorting effect of population increases and the associated regional development, it goes on to indicate that

Ernst Rauch, who heads the company’s [Munich Reinsurance] Corporate Climate Center...[says]..."we believe we have indications that climate change is already, at least to some extent, visible."

With this damning evidence in hand, the author proceeds to conflate the above quote on 'climate change' with 'global warming'.

More tropical storms and Hurricanes are expected to hit the U.S. Global warming is increasing their intensity which increases the amount of damage they leave in their wake.

Of course, warming is 50% of climate change, so there could easily be nothing in this statement with which to object. But two paragraphs later we get the statement that

While politicians bicker over the reality of climate change, insurance companies are dealing with its reality.

Here is where the author makes the fallacious logical jump. First, in general, politicians are not bickering over the 'reality of climate change'; I know of no politician who would argue with the statement that 'climate change is real and has existed since the concept of climate itself has existed'. No, politicians are bickering over the existence or extent of anthropogenic climate change. Second, they are bickering about the extent to which we should dedicate limited resources--and whose resources--to attempting to influence climate change. In the minds of the global warming deniers, both of these decisions must be based on the validity of the scientific modeling used to predict climate change, as well as the elimination of any competing hypotheses for the climate changes we are witnessing today. In other words, reliable scientific proofs combined with targeted, workable solutions. Neither of which currently exist.
It is good that the circumstantial evidence gathered by the insurance industry points to a change in climate; if it did not, the veracity of the evidence itself should be questioned. But the way this essay uses the evidence is nothing more than an extension of the correlation = causation logical fallacy--combined with some artful conflation of 'climate change' with 'anthropogenic global warming'.
Politicians and the people they represent don't need more propaganda that simply further harms the credibility of the sources and delays any substantive action. What they need is solid scientific evidence and realistic, potential solutions from which to choose.

Hey, Washington: Compromise was NOT the objective!

2010-11-03T22:13:00.000-04:00

Here it is with the election not even 24 hours old, with many races still to be called, and I am already fed up with the liberal spin on their loss of the House of Representatives. Just as in 1994, they are trying to frame this rout as a call for compromise, a call for more civil discourse in Government, a call for cooperation so as to make this a ‘productive’ congress.
Let me be crystal clear:

I did NOT vote for compromise.

I did NOT vote for gridlock.

I voted to ROLL BACK big government.

I voted for a return to Constitutionally limited government. By that, I mean that everything not explicitly authorized by the US Constitution should be eliminated. That means the Department of Education, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Energy, the Department of Labor, the Department of Homeland Security, the HHS, the FEC, the FCC, the FDA, the EPA, the FBI, the NSA, the CIA, and many, many others got to go. It doesn’t mean that we need to shut them all down immediately, but they eventually need to go.
If, for the next two years this Congress could simply go through all the existing laws and regulations with an eye to repealing about the last 80 years worth—and not pass any new laws—I would be a happy American. Think about it: if we could just get rid of the harmful subsidies (sugar, mohair, agriculture, etc.) as well as all the Government Sponsored Enterprises (Fannie, Freddie, CPB, Import-Export Bank, etc.) and the Federal Reserve, we would save hundreds of billions of dollars a year. That would be some meaningful spending cuts which would reduce the deficit.
Yes, we need to address and wind down Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and all the other unconstitutional Ponzi schemes and welfare programs, but with the Federal Government’s current size and scope we have such a target rich environment that we need not address those really controversial issues for some time.
In short, compromise in the way the MSM portrays it—some sort of hyper civility—is not even on my radar. I know that in reality gridlock is the best we can probably hope for in this election cycle. As for rolling back big government, with only the House I expect nothing major will be accomplished in the end. But stopping the progressive machine as soon as possible is not a minor achievement, either.
If there is one area where I would welcome true compromise, it is in the regulatory arena. I fully expect Obama to pretend to move to the center on legislative issues since the Conservatives in House will (hopefully) prevent any new initiatives, and thus exploit his regulatory authority to implement his progressive agenda. If any compromise is possible, I hope it can be found in leveraging the self interest of those liberals in the legislative branch to reign in the regulators in the executive branch. After all, those unelected regulators have been slowly eroding the power of the legislative branch. Another possible area of compromise would be the repeal of the Patriot Act and other areas of Government overreach. Finally, a compromise might be possible to rollback the collusion between big government and big business. Big businesses have been manipulating the Federal Government for decades to eliminate competition, drive up prices, and increase profits. All of these areas are open for Conservatives (vice Republicans) to reach a compromise with the Liberals (vice Progressives) in the 2010 Congress.
We can only hope, stick to our principles, and take the Senate and the Presidency in 2012.

Ripping Off the Taxpayer. Who Do YOU Blame; DC or Wall Street?

2010-06-14T19:08:00.000-04:00

Here is a short video (4:26) that should really get your blood boiling:

The important question here--or at least the one that truly distinguishes an individuals mindset--is 'Who do you hold most responsible?' The criminals in Washington DC or those on Wall Street? In this case I don't think that anyone can help but choose either one or the other. One perspective I choose to use is 'who is--or is not--doing their job?'
The job of Wall Street is to 'maximize shareholder value', or to put another way, make money for those who own stock in the company (Goldman Sachs, in this case) without violating any laws.
The job of the FDIC--and the politicians in Washington who hire them--is to protect taxpayer money and get the economy working again.
In this case, Goldman Sachs did their job. The taxpayer got taken to the cleaners. Again.
Just as anyone else who can spend other people's money, the politicians care more about the appearance of 'doing something' than protecting our hard earned money.
So to sum up, the politicians created the problem, and then go to Wall Street and throw more of our money away so they can look good.
I would be interested in your thoughts...

Your Wheelchair is a Chariot: Mornings at the Pentagon

2010-02-02T23:17:00.000-05:00

This is a really great story about what it really means to be in the military. As some of you may know, I am retired military. What most don’t know is that my father was retired military, too, and had been blown up losing his arm and leg. Needless to say, I was very familiar with wheelchairs, and learned by about 7 years old how to do ‘wheel stands’, and race. To me, the following story means more than I can express.
The post has a bit of history on the web, and has been reposted many times according to Google. A link to the original story from Memorial Day, 2007 is here. Regardless, I just received it today, so it is new to me. If anyone can fill me in on more of the history, and if the ceremony is still in practice, I would sincerely appreciate it. (H/T: Tom Aderhold)

Mornings at the Pentagon
By JOSEPH L. GALLOWAY McClatchy Newspapers
Over the last 12 months, 1,042 soldiers, Marines, sailors and Air Force personnel have given their lives in the terrible duty that is war. Thousands more have come home on stretchers, horribly wounded and facing months or years in military hospitals.
This week, I'm turning my space over to a good friend and former roommate, Army Lt. Col. Robert Bateman, who recently completed a year long tour of duty in Iraq and is now back at the Pentagon.
Here's Lt. Col. Bateman's account of a little-known ceremony that fills the halls of the Army corridor of the Pentagon with cheers, applause and many tears every Friday morning. It first appeared on May 17 on the Weblog of media critic and pundit Eric Alterman at the Media Matters for America Website.
"It is 110 yards from the "E" ring to the "A" ring of the Pentagon. This section of the Pentagon is newly renovated; the floors shine, the hallway is broad, and the lighting is bright. At this instant the entire length of the corridor is packed with officers, a few sergeants and some civilians, all crammed tightly three and four deep against the walls. There are thousands here.
This hallway, more than any other, is the `Army' hallway. The G3 offices line one side, G2 the other, G8 is around the corner. All Army. Moderate conversations flow in a low buzz. Friends, who may not have seen each other for a few weeks, or a few years, spot each other, cross the way and renew.
Everyone shifts to ensure an open path remains down the center. The air conditioning system was not designed for this press of bodies in this area.
The temperature is rising already. Nobody cares. "10:36 hours: The clapping starts at the E-Ring. That is the outermost of the five rings of the Pentagon and it is closest to the entrance to the building. This clapping is low, sustained, hearty. It is applause with a deep emotion behind it as it moves forward in a wave down the length of the hallway.
"A steady rolling wave of sound it is, moving at the pace of the soldier in the wheelchair who marks the forward edge with his presence. He is the first. He is missing the greater part of one leg, and some of his wounds are still suppurating. By his age I expect that he is a private, or perhaps a private first class.
"Captains, majors, lieutenant colonels and colonels meet his gaze and nod as they applaud, soldier to soldier. Three years ago when I described one of these events, those lining the hallways were somewhat different. The applause a little wilder, perhaps in private guilt for not having shared in the burden ... yet.
"Now almost everyone lining the hallway is, like the man in the wheelchair, also a combat veteran. This steadies the applause, but I think deepens the sentiment. We have all been there now. The soldier's chair is pushed by, I believe, a full colonel.
"Behind him, and stretching the length from Rings E to A, come more of his peers, each private, corporal, or sergeant assisted as need be by a field grade officer.
"11:00 hours: Twenty-four minutes of steady applause. My hands hurt, and I laugh to myself at how stupid that sounds in my own head. My hands hurt. Please! Shut up and clap. For twenty-four minutes, soldier after soldier has come down this hallway - 20, 25, 30... Fifty-three legs come with them, and perhaps only 52 hands or arms, but down this hall came 30 solid hearts.
They pass down this corridor of officers and applause, and then meet for a private lunch, at which they are the guests of honor, hosted by the generals. Some are wheeled along. Some insist upon getting out of their chairs, to march as best they can with their chin held up, down this hallway, through this most unique audience. Some are catching handshakes and smiling like a politician at a Fourth of July parade. More than a couple of them seem amazed and are smiling shyly.
"There are families with them as well: the 18-year-old war-bride pushing her 19-year-old husband's wheelchair and not quite understanding why her husband is so affected by this, the boy she grew up with, now a man, who had never shed a tear is crying; the older immigrant Latino parents who have, perhaps more than their wounded mid-20s son, an appreciation for the emotion given on their son's behalf. No man in that hallway, walking or clapping, is ashamed by the silent tears on more than a few cheeks. An Airborne Ranger wipes his eyes only to better see. A couple of the officers in this crowd have themselves been a part of this parade in the past.
These are our men, broken in body they may be, but they are our brothers, and we welcome them home. This parade has gone on, every single Friday, all year long, for more than four years.

The forgotten tax cheats

2009-05-04T23:21:00.000-04:00

Today Obama identified another group that according to his twisted logic, has for too long not paid their 'fair share' of taxes. This time it is businesses. Just because we have about the highest business tax rate in the world (with Federal, State and Local, approximately 39%) does not count. Just because we tax businesses on foreign profits--which few to no other countries do--means nothing. They have been slackers. Just because they provide the vast majority of jobs and wealth in this country doesn't count a bit. Obama is now making sure that they will either pay what he determines is a fair tax rate, or they can leave. What do you think they will do? No company would choose Ireland, for example which only has a 10% business tax rate, over the US, right?
This is not the first time Obama has chosen to use class warfare to dupe the idiotic American public, think of his 'tax cut for 95% of Americans'. Well since less than 50% of Americans actually pay any taxes, that is a neat trick. A tax cut for those who don't pay Federal taxes is what again, exactly? And I won't even mention the 60 cents a pack the millions of smokers have to pay to fund his SCHIP program. Or the billions in new energy taxes his cap and trade scheme will collect from every single American that uses any source of energy.
And of course, all the 'rich' who make over $250,000 a year is the other group of tax cheats. They haven't been pulling their weight, either, right? I am waiting for just how much Obama thinks is a fair share of the money they work for every day. No matter how many years they scrimped and saved, how many years they went without, the high school dropout, drug dealer, welfare queen, homeless person down the street is now just as equal to the fruits of their labor. This is Obama's promise: 'a vote for me is a vote for the fruits of other peoples' sweat.'
But hasn't Obama forgotten the 50% of Americans who don't pay any federal income taxes at all? Why aren't they contributing? They use the vast majority of government services, but pay nothing? Seems to me that if it is free--as it is to them--they won't value it very much. Seems to me they have not been paying their 'fair share' for quite some time. Why exactly is it again that they should benefit from my hard work? Shouldn't they reap the benefits of their own efforts? Stealing the benefits of my sweat from me, to give to them, just makes them not try harder, and makes me no want to put forth the effort to achieve. And besides, shouldn't they have to pay something for all those goodies they get, like free health care (medicaid, SCHIP) free money (earned income tax credit) and the thousands of other ways Obama spends taxpayers money--my money--on them to buy their vote for him?

As you can see from the above, I have begun posting essentially raw thoughts. The collectivists are doing so many things to destroy America so fast, that I can't spend the time to wordsmith.

Income Inequality: How To Lie With Statistics

2008-10-17T22:33:00.000-04:00

I know it doesn't come as a surprise to anyone, but a new article by Alan Reynolds, Cato Senior Fellow, shows just how simple it is to "prove" income inequality has been growing in recent years. (You can read the full article here) Obama routinely uses this canard to dupe his worshipers, er, I mean followers. As Barry is reputed to have an above average IQ (130), one would doubt that he, too, has been taken in. Maybe he is too busy trying to dig up the paperwork a Federal Judge in Pennsylvania has ordered him to produce which proves he applied to have his American Citizenship restored? I know that would distract me if I had spent years seeking a position which has citizenship as a legal prerequisite.
Anyway, back to 'income inequality'.
Every collectivist progressive loves to tout how 'due to the Bush Tax Cuts, the top 1 percent got filthier rich and the poor just got poorer.' They often cite studies from this or that progressive organization such as the Brookings Institute or the Pew Charitable Trust. As Dr Reynold's article is rather short, there is no need to recreate it here, but suffices to say that it is a simple as choosing what year the comparison begins or ends with. Another simple method is to use before tax numbers to justify increasing taxes. Finally, what components of a group's income are included as income for the various brackets compared is used. The differences can be dramatic.
What Reynolds demonstrates is that the only real way to compare is via actual tax rates, per group over the same time-frame using the same data-set--in other words, comparing apples to apples. Here is a concise breakdown using a single Congressional Budget Office set of data (Dr Reynolds does not actually put this in a table, so I did) This table actually included one of the two years (1979 and 2002) that are routinely used to demonstrate income equality:

Percent Income Paid as Taxes by Bracket
Year/Bracket	Top 1%	Middle 20%	Bottom 20%
1979	21.8	7.5	--
1989	19.9	--	(-1.6)
2000	--	5.0	(-4.6)
2005	19.4	3.0	(-6.5)

That is right, folks. Those minus signs are payments to the bottom 20% through things like the Earned Income Tax Credit and other giveaways. Of other people's money. If you were constrained by money in choosing your child's college, for example, now you know where that money went. And yes, everyone has received a tax break. But by far those in the bottom quintile have 'benefited' much more (1.4, vs 4.5 vs at least 4.9).
Although I probably shouldn't stray too far from the point, one perspective that I can't get away from is: In light of the above, just how is Obama planning to give a 'tax cut' to 95% of working Americans?

Mortgage Meltdown Notes

2008-09-22T11:24:00.000-04:00

This is a collection of links and references documenting the current mortgage crisis.

Background & General Coverage

Good general coverage is by the Competitive Enterprise Institutes OpenMarket.org.
A very good explanation about how the whole subprime process--with enough detail to actually explain it. 'Betting on Financial Armageddon' This also gives us another entry in the 'Blame Line' below.
Criticism of the Paulson Fannie & Freddie bailout at A "Failed Business Model"

The Fix

Wall Street Journal-Here was a good plan to fix the long term Frannie and Freddie nightmare 'End the Mortgage Duopoly'
A simple and elegant fix which addresses the real culprit, the mark-to-market accounting rules: 'Here’s A Plan to Avoid a New RTC'

The Blame Line

Campaign Contributions by Fannie & Freddie as reported by 'open secrets' 'Update: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Invest in Lawmakers'
Congress members invested in Fannie & Freddie 'Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Takeover Costs Congressmen Who Were Invested'

Goldman Sachs chairman and chief executive Lloyd Blankfein said one of the problems was that many financial institutions and investors "outsourced" their risk management."Rather than undertake their own analysis, they relied on the rating agencies to do the essential work of risk analysis for them. This was true at the inception and over the period of the investment, during which time they did not heed other indicators of financial deterioration," he told the panel. 1/13/2010 Congressional Testimony. Top US bankers admit missteps in financial crisis

SEC:

"Up until 2003, all investment banks were allowed only 12 to 1 leverage. Then in 2004, the SEC basically gave five banks (and only five banks) the ability to lever up 30 or even 40 to 1. Bet you can guess the five banks. Bear, Lehman, Merrill, Morgan and Goldman. Three down."
SEC regulation has actually created a Cartel in the Credit Rating agencies, which has established significant barriers to entry--just another way government regulation is responsible for this crisis. Part of Basel II according to Randy (Basel II)

The three cartel agencies; Fitch, S&P and Moody's that have done the CDO ratings "Amid the chaos of the escalating subprime mortgage crisis, the three major credit-rating agencies - Fitch, Moody's and Standard & Poor's - have been voices of calm. They've downgraded only a sliver of the debt backed by such mortgages, and they say they expect the mess to stay safely confined to the subprime sector."
"Investors criticized S&P, Fitch Ratings and Moody's Investors Service, saying their ratings on bonds backed by U.S. mortgages to people with limited credit didn't reflect the lax lending standards that caused their backward-looking default rates to be inapplicable to risk level of the loans being made.^"
One thing that contributed to the credit crisis was the sucking up of massive amounts of liquidity by international central banks to borrow huge amounts for stimulus plans. (sjb)
Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, economics professor at Columbia University in New York observed: “I view the ratings agencies as one of the key culprits. They were the party that performed that alchemy that converted the securities from F-rated to A-rated. The banks could not have done what they did without the complicity of the ratings agencies.”

HUD, Fannie & Freddie and the CRA:

Investors Business Daily traces some of the links between HUD, Fannie & Freddie and the Community Redevelopment Act in 'The Real Culprits In This Meltdown'
Great article by the liberal rag--The Village Voice--regarding the Federal Government's policy involvement in the current liquidity crisis. 'Andrew Cuomo and Fannie and Freddie' Aug 2008
A chronological list of HUD secretaries is here.

GAAP Accounting Rules

Wall Street Journal on the impact of new (last November) government mandated accounting rules. 'Maybe the Banks Are Just Counting Wrong'

Just my own opinion:
(2/15/2010) Remember how mortgages used to be when you were growing up? You got your loan from a local bank or Savings & Loan (this was one of the reasons S&L's were created--banks too restrictive on loans to regular people) and they usually kept it in house and serviced it. That also means that the bank representative who sold you the mortgage has his/her reputation on the line. Likewise, the bank would suffer the consequences if you defaulted.
All that ended with Fannie. Later Freddie--which had been around since the 30's--updated its business plan to get in on the action. Now mortgage brokers and mortgage banks would make the loan, but then sell it to Fannie or Freddie (F&F). The originator would never see that loan--or be liable for the risks, if any--again. All of this was a part of a wonderful government plan to expand homeownership. Talk about unintended consequences!

The Road Less Traveled: H.R. 3343

2008-03-16T21:59:00.000-04:00

Politicians and the media have molded the national conversation on health care into a discussion about a choice between our current free-market system and a government funded, universal health care system. As prices continue to spiral out of control, it seems everyone is calling for the government to 'do something'. The approach most favored by the media is to label out of control health care costs as a 'market failure'. They quote statistics indicating that health care costs are increasing year after year at rates far beyond the annual inflation rate, and call it proof of a classic failure of the free-market. The fundamental 'ruthlessness' of the free-market is likewise to blame for the millions of Americans without access to medical care. Only more government controls will get prices under control and provide coverage for all Americans.
We are never told that the government already controls health care spending in the US. In fact, government provided health care (Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP. etc) and regulation determines approximately 80% of all health care prices in the US. In reality, then, the spiraling costs are not a free-market failure; they are a government failure. All truly unregulated, free-market health care cost trends are exactly opposite the current cost trends of government regulated medical services. According to a 2006 survey of studies by the National Center for Policy Analysis the costs of medical services not regulated or covered by government or insurance, have either fallen or not increased as much as either prices in general or covered medical services. Cosmetic surgery fared the worst of the services studied and LASIK surgery the best:

From 1992 to 2005, a price index of common cosmetic surgery procedures rose only 22 percent while the average increase for medical services was 77 percent; overall, prices for all goods increased 39 percent.
The cost per eye of conventional vision correction laser surgery (LASIK) averaged about $2,100 between 1999 and 2005. By 2005 the price had fallen to just over $1,600.

As these cases show, the plain fact is that the evidence we have for the operation of a free-market in medical services shows that it works. Our daily experience of sustained and substantial rising prices indicates that our current government-managed medical care does not work. Yet all the health care proposals of the major Presidential candidates ignore this fact, and at best they promise us more of the same. Only one candidate--Congressman Ron Paul--seems to have a solution; and it is already a bill in Congress. Dr. Paul's 'Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act' (H.R. 3343) according to DownsizeDC would:

Give you a 100% refund from your taxes of every dollar you spend on medical care, including insurance premiums.
Make it easier for your employer to deposit the money it now gives to the health insurance companies into a Health Saving Account that would belong to you
This money would come to you tax free--you could use it to fund your health care and your insurance premiums This means your health insurance would belong to you, not your employer
You would have the money to pay small medical expenses with your Health Savings Account, which would allow you to reduce your insurance premiums by buying a Major Medical Plan, instead of a Cadillac Plan
You would also earn interest on the money in your Health Savings Account, tax free--you would get this interest instead of the insurance companies getting it (collecting interest on premiums is how the insurance companies make their money--these profits could be yours instead)
Plus, you would become your doctor's customer, instead of the government or your insurance company being your doctor's customer
This would place the consumer in charge, creating competition that would lower prices and improve quality

Simple and straightforward, the bill applies proven, free-market principles. It would bring down prices using competition, applied technology and increases in efficiency. As prices come down, more and more Americans would have access to affordable health care. Free market competition forces increasing availability. The history of decreasing prices over time in long distance calls, the automobile, and HDTV should make this point crystal clear.
The real national conversation needs to be about how best to de-regulate medical care, and what can be done to speed the transition to a system that works, not who will march the fastest down the road toward government mismanaged Universal Health Care.
(This article was published by The Conservative Voice on March 16, 2008.)

Is the US Constitution Still Valid?

2007-07-09T22:08:00.000-04:00

I recently participated in a discussion board where an individual stated that the US Constitution is a "deeply flawed document masquerading as a 'contract' or 'compact' which describes a possibly workable, but by no stretch of the imagination consensual government." This is not the first time that the idea of the US Constitution as a failed contract has come up. Libertarian blogs have been discussing it for years. Rather more recently, however some mainstream liberal and conservative groups have been 'nibbling around the edges' of this very same idea. So has our hallowed Constitution failed us? Is it a failed document and idea? Should we scrap it and look for some new compact between the People and the Government? As Congressman Ron Paul-a 'back to the Constitution' candidate if there ever was one-is now a viable candidate in the 2008 Presidential race, it seems a good time to look more closely at the issue.
Simply put, the Constitution is not a failed document. If anything it did not fail us; we failed it. Over time, we have allowed the safeguards that our Founding Fathers built into the Constitution to be abrogated, annulled, or ignored by our government. The founders recognized the sovereignty of the people. The people were to be the ultimate enforcers of the strict limits that were placed on government. As Jefferson said when discussing the impropriety of judicial interpretation of Constitutional questions:

"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." (The Writings Of Thomas Jefferson, By Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association of the United States, Washington, DC, 1902, page 278: letter to William Charles Jarvis, Monticello, September 28, 1820.)

The structures the Founders established in the US Constitution were designed to create and reinforce internal and external competition and balances of power, with the intent of ultimately reducing the threat of government tyranny. The founders recognized that some tasks were best accomplished by government, but with the concomitant danger of accumulation of power in a single group. The State Governments balance the Federal Government balance the people. Within the Federal Government, they balanced the Executive against the Legislative against the Judicial branches. These two groups of three: the People, the State Governments, the Federal Government, and, the Legislative, Executive, Judicial branches, were intended to diffuse the concentration of political power in any one group while still allowing efficiency. As Jefferson put it:

"No, my friend, the way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to. Let the national government be entrusted with the defence of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, laws, police, and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man's farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best. What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body, no matter whether of the autocrats of Russia or France, or of the aristocrats of a Venetian senate." (Letters, Jefferson, Thomas, 1743-1826, Merrill D. Peterson, Literary Classics of the United States, New York, 1984, page 1380: letter regarding THE WARD SYSTEM, To Joseph C. Cabell. Monticello, February 2, 1816.)

The founders also ensured the people had the means to enforce their ultimate sovereignty over government via the 2^nd Amendment:

"What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure." (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Henry A. Washington, ed, 1853-54, 911: letter regarding THE NEW CONSTITUTION, To William S. Smith. Paris, November 13, 1787. )

If all else fails, the people are empowered to rebel to protect their liberty and enforce their will on an overweening government. According to Jefferson, this was the only effective means of controlling government. The Constitution provided the people with the tools to effectively balance the Federal and State Governments. The people were expected to play the dominant role by reining in excessive concentrations of power in the State and Federal Governments.

The internal and external balances fundamental to the success of the Constitution have been severely damaged. The 14^th and 17^th Amendments eviscerated the powers of the States to function as a counterweight to the Federal Government. The Civil War even removed the right of the people and the States to secede from association with the Federal Government. As a result, power was shifted away from the States and the people to the Federal Government. Within the Federal Government, the careful balance established by the division of powers between the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches has been gradually defused amongst all three. The Judiciary and Executive branched now make policy with the force of law. The Judiciary interprets all constitutional questions and applies them to the other branches, the States and the people. The careful balances crafted by the founders have been systematically disassembled, and the associated political power has been shifted further and further to Washington, DC. We the people allowed it, and in some cases actively aided and abetted this shift.

All is not lost, however. There is still time to reestablish the Constitutional balances. The recent defeat of the Immigration Bill provides two lessons: One, we can still get our Representatives to execute our will if we unite and bludgeon them into it. Two, we are nearly to the point where we are in danger of becoming the subjects of a new populist regency. We will have an elected dictatorship of those who pander most to our shortsighted avarice. The people will be left with little more than the ability to elect their choice of dictators. We are not at that point just yet, as our Representatives in the end, bowed to the will of the people. The fact that they nearly did not should serve as a clear warning of how close we are to a complete loss of our power to control the Federal Government.

A recent email exchange I had with a Congressional Aide demonstrates this point. We were discussing the need to rescue Social Security. I had been providing studies and other background materials so that the aide could intelligently brief the Congressman. One statement that the aide made in passing struck me: "Congress is going to have to make some tough decisions shortly. The earlier they tackle the solvency issue, the less painful it will be." Notice that 'Congress' is going to have to make some tough decisions; not the American people. This should serve as a clear indication that we are nearing a point at which the Federal Government will be completely unrestrained by the people.

The Constitution is not a failed document. If there are flaws, the Constitution itself provides for changes. The Founding Fathers were well aware that it was not a perfect document, and so included in Article V two means of modification: Congressional proposals of amendment, and a Constitutional Convention called by the State legislatures. We have seen some of the flaws, such as no clear statements on the right of secession, the limits on judicial interpretation, and the right of the people to adjudge the justice of the law itself, not only the guilt or innocence of the accused. That the Constitution provided a means to fix these types of oversights demonstrates its continued viability.

Erroneously faulting the Constitution for our improper use is equivalent to blaming the handgun for the crimes of a murderer. Our misuse of the tools the Constitution provided has caused a systems failure, however. If we uphold our responsibilities as envisioned by the Constitution, return the power to the States in line with the Constitution, and enforce the division of power within the Federal Government as was intended, we can correct the systems failure and re-invigorate our Constitutional Republic. With the people firmly back at the helm, just as the Constitution intended.

Global Warming Goes To Washington

2007-02-28T22:03:00.000-05:00

(This is a historical piece from February 2007)

I have done a bit of investigation into the Global Warming issue. I studied Physics as an undergrad, and since have avidly followed new scientific discoveries and issues. As I only have a Bachelors degree I should never be confused with a 'real' scientist, but I am sufficiently familiar with the methodology and nomenclature of scientific issues to usually make sense of the arguments and concepts. When the issue of Global Warming first presented itself several years ago, I thought that it was simply another interesting scientific debate. When the 'Blame-it-on-America' doomsayers started crowing it a couple of years ago, I just shook my head in disgust. When the typical political panderers in Washington picked it up, I still though it was nothing to be overly concerned about. But when our President mentioned it in his State Of The Union Address, and new Speaker of the House embraced it last month, that REALLY scared me. It is one thing when competing scientific hypotheses are being debated and potential theories which may address the resultant issues are proposed; but it is an entirely different case when we are debating implementing radical solutions to purely hypothetical problems. It scares me to think that we could have the government trying to fix' it via law-with unanticipated consequences galore.

Remember Global Cooling back in the 1970's? I do. Remember how it was going to require spreading coal dust on the polar ice caps and other extreme--and very, very expensive--solutions just to keep an Ice Age away? Thankfully, we never did any of them. Now, 30 years later, we have Global Warming. I guess all the pundits back then were wrong. Imagine if we had been arrogant enough to take the drastic measures that were recommended at the time? We would now be further destroying our environment and our economy trying to 'fix' our attempts to stop Global Cooling! Do you think they could be wrong again this time with Global Warming? I would say the odds are better than 50/50.

A more realistic view of the current Global Warming argument revolves around the root causes of this particular instance of warming. As you may or may not know, the world temperature is always either going up over time or going down over time. These cycles are spread out over tens, hundreds, sometimes thousands of years. In an entire lifetime, one would hardly notice the changes in the average global temperature. There is no 'right' temperature; no steady-state. The only real distinction for this particular warming trend, is to answer the question of whether it is part of the natural cycle, or has it been caused or exacerbated by changes in the CO2 level as a direct result of recent human activities. Right now, there is an ongoing debate in the scientific community if this period of warming is any different than the hundreds of other warming periods in the earth's geological and climatological history. This question has not yet been answered definitively, and the scientific community is in no way even near consensus.

Even if, however, this question was resolved in favor of the argument for man-made global warming, there are still very serious questions about two aspects of any proposed solutions:

First, do we know enough to implement methods to control the warming without doing potentially catastrophic harm to the earth? The earth is a massively complex interrelated system. It is both delicate and resilient. The system is so complex however, that even in this age of super-computers we cannot build an accurate model, both from a lack of knowledge and a lack of computing power. Could the methods we use to control warming actually cause a massive cooling such as was predicted in the 197's? The general scientific consensus is that, no, we do not yet know enough one way or the other. In other words, we do not yet know enough to make a rational decision; all we can do is guess. The computer models we have and the ones that had to be manipulated to achieve the results in support of any man-made global warming are not accurate enough to predict what is going to happen, much less what will happen from any intervention. It would be nearly criminally irresponsible to start trying to manipulate the delicate climatological balance when we cannot even generate a reliable model of what the impacts would be. We take a--not nominal--chance of upsetting the natural balance and turning the Earth into something like Venus. I personally would not like that, how about you?

Second, since we do not know what will be required to reduce warming without upsetting this delicate balance, we also do not know enough to judge effectively the economic versus environmental tradeoffs that would be required. For example, if the consequences of doing nothing are environmentally near zero, would we want to pay an economic cost of a global depression? We cannot judge the worth of a solution without first having at least some idea of the costs, benefits, and risks. Again, we just don't know enough, and good decisions cannot be made with incomplete, doctored, or faulty data; even if one lives in D.C.!

So far as the Kyoto Agreement is concerned, the best estimates I have seen predict a potential reduction of the global average temperature by 0.04 degrees will have little to no real effect, and will likely cost some trillions of dollars. That minuscule predicted reduction is assuming the signatory countries actually fully implement the required economic modifications. To date, the vast majority have not: Britain, for instance, was targeted to decrease CO2 emissions by 12%. To date Britain actually increased emissions by 9%. In only the first couple of years, the economic costs have already become much more onerous than anyone initially anticipated. A large group of Canadian climatologists are already petitioning the Canadian government to revoke its agreement to Kyoto.

If this warming trend is not natural and was totally caused by man-made CO2 output increases, or our CO2 production has simply made it worse, we need to look seriously at the issue. Once we know the causes, we can then focus on how to fix it. As is so often being preached, the environmental balance is delicate. It is not something we should attempt to manipulate without knowing exactly what we are doing, and without a good idea of the consequences, both climatologically and economically. Then we can accurately evaluate the tradeoff's required. We need to wait until at the very minimum a preponderance of the experts concur on both the cause(s) and the solution(s) before acting. When we know what we are doing, then we should act resolutely.

Man-made global warming is not a proven fact, and it is far too early to make laws based on guesses which can too easily have unintended and possibly catastrophic consequences. The majority of scientists in applicable fields agree on this much, at least. Global Warming is a serious issue, still deeply entrenched in debate. Doing too much too soon can easily be worse than too little too late.

Confessions of a Ron Paul Spammer

2007-02-06T22:05:00.000-05:00

(This was published by Associated Content)
After all the news stories from online pollsters, radio talkshow hosts, and news people in general stating unequivocally that Ron Paul's domination of online polls on the two Republican Presidential debates is due to "spamming polls on the Internet", I have decided that I must be a Ron Paul Spammer.
There, I admitted it. All the psychologists say that the first step toward a cure is to admit the problem. I guess I will now need to join "Ron Paul Spammers Anonymous"? Does anyone know if there is a chapter in Florida yet? Or is it an online program only? I could always Google it, but I am not sure if Google still allows searches that include the contiguous words 'Ron Paul'. I'll have to try it.
I don't know how this happened to me, really. I used to be just a normal, 50-ish, Republican. Ever since January, though, when Ron Paul announced his Exploratory Committee for President, I just haven't been able to stop myself. I initially attributed it to the elation I felt that a truly principle man had finally entered the Presidential race. Someone who stands by and defends the US Constitution as I did when I was in the Military. But my fervor has continued, unabated, and I find myself spending more and more time working to support Ron Paul, both online and in real life. I still find it hard to believe however, that ardently supporting someone on the internet who represents my values could be considered spam by anyone.
Spam--at least according to the American Heritage Dictionary--is an "Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial nature, sent indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups; junk e-mail." In Wikipedia it is defined as "the abuse of electronic messaging systems to send unsolicited bulk messages, which are generally undesired. While the most widely recognized form of spam is email spam, the term is applied to similar abuses in other media: instant messaging spam, Usenet newsgroup spam, Web search engine spam, spam in blogs, mobile phone messaging spam, internet forum spam and junk fax transmissions. Spam is also called junk mail."
I'm a spammer, alright. I have sent emails to Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Larry Kudlow, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and others regarding comments on their programs about or relating to Ron Paul and his positions. I doubt they wanted them. I am active online, and I have voted in numerous polls. In fact, we Ron Paul activists have several eGroups that we use to disseminate information about polls just so we can vote in them. So far as my personal behavior, I vote in them. Once. No bots, no electronic assistance of any kind. The same old, go to the website and 'click'.
Well, I must admit that I have cheated twice: The first time, I was confused by the 'slider bars' on the MSNBC site after the first Republican debate in California; Before I knew it, I had voted 'neutral' on all the candidates. Since the site prevented me from changing my vote or voting again, I got on my daughter's computer and voted the way I really wanted. The second time was after the South Carolina debate, when I voted via Text Message: I punched in the message the first time and got no response, so I voted again about 20 minutes later just in case I sent the wrong number or something. I only got one 'thank you' message, so either they had it covered, or I did send it incorrectly. I guess that is spamming, too.
Or could it be that most of Ron Paul's support actually is on the internet? Regular people, who have access to a computer, and can actually voice their opinions? They don't need a lot of money and can't be considered pundits in the sense that they have wide influence with the media. Just average Americans, who think that this country is going in the wrong direction. Those who read and understand the Constitution, and still consider themselves--The People--to be the sovereigns of this country. Those who do not think that they are well served by the people that purportedly represent them in Washington D.C. Look at percentage of people who don't vote in this country: do they abstain because they must choose between bad and worse? The people I have spoken with that support Ron Paul are from every party and no party. Some haven't voted for years because they consider it a waste of time. These are the people who are 'fired up' and out there voting in every poll. They want Ron Paul.
So the question becomes, are we spammers because we are active, or because we have some sinister technology that allows us to defeat all the software engineers and security experts deployed to prevent just such abuses? Or are we simply more widespread and conveying a message that is considered 'undesirable' by all the pundits? Both, by definition, are spam, but the latter is also quintessential to the concept of being an American.
Since I don't have any technological miracles, it must be becuase I an active online and I support Ron Paul. I think I will skip the next Spammers Anonymous meeting, as I see I have a few polls I haven't voted in yet...