The pursuit of Constitutionally grounded governance, freedom
and individual liberty
"There is but
one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily." --George Washington
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Economics Lesson Washington Must Learn
By Sheldon Richman
President Obama is again turning his attention to the elusive economic recovery. His "pivot" will be for naught, however, as long as he continues to ignore two important points: first, government is a major squanderer of scarce resources, and second, its regulations are impediments to saving and investment.
We live in a world of scarcity. At any given time our ends outnumber the means to achieve them. Hence we economize so that we can achieve as many of our ends as possible. Resources, labor, and time devoted to one purpose can't also be used for other purposes, and the alternative forgone is the true cost of any action. We individually choose among competing ends after assessing the trade-offs, because we don't want inadvertently to give up something we prefer in exchange for something we don't value as much. The marketplace, when it's free of government privilege and regulation, lets us accomplish this to a remarkable degree. In doing so, it raises our living standards and creates an orderly environment, thanks to the price system, which coordinates and facilitates our plans.
Government throws this process out of whack. When politicians forcibly extract resources from us (through taxation) and borrow, they leave us less with which we can improve our lives through entrepreneurship, business formation, and the like. But, you may ask, aren't the politicians' projects worthwhile? Actually, many government projects are of zero value or worse. The costly global empire is beyond useless: it endangers us. Other projects might be useful, but — and this is key — we can't be sure, because they are not subject to the market test. If a private entrepreneur acquires resources in a quest for profit, she must create value for consumers or she will fail. The market's profit-and-loss test will see to that. That test is administered by countless millions of consumers who are free to take or leave what the entrepreneur offers. This test is relayed back to the investors who lend money to entrepreneurs for productive ventures. They know that if the entrepreneur fails, they will also suffer losses. So they must scrutinize projects in terms of their potential, ultimately, to please free consumers.
The upshot is that consumers' un-coerced actions signal (through prices and profit/loss) what pleases them and what does not. Suppliers must pay heed or face bankruptcy. This explains why markets, when not burdened by government privileges and arbitrary rules, work so well to raise living standards. Note how government projects differ essentially from market projects. Politicians and bureaucrats obtain their money through force, not consensual mutual exchange. (What happens if you tell the IRS you don't want to purchase its "services"?) Even the money obtained through voluntary loans is expected to be repaid with the taxpayers' money. It's taxation all the way down. Moreover, government "services" are not offered in a competitive market where consumers are free to take them or leave them. Since we're forced to pay a monopoly provider regardless of whether we want the "services," at the point of delivery they appear to be free. You can't opt out of paying for "free public schools" even if you don't want to use them. Everyone pays into Social Security, a (meager) pension plan, under threat of force. In other words, government services are not true services in the market sense because they face no market test from consumers free to withhold their money without penalty.
The market test assures that bad trade-offs are avoided, or at least quickly corrected if they are made. If steel is being used to make one product when consumers are demanding something else, the competitive entrepreneurial process sees to it that steel will be redirected. No corresponding process exists in the political realm. It contains no incentives to look out for the consumers' welfare. Instead, we have political theater and value destruction. This would be bad enough, but it's actually worse. What government does with the stolen resources typically makes it harder for us to use the remaining resources productively. Uncertainty about future taxation and regulation, for example, increases the risk of investment and hence reduces it.
An indispensable prerequisite of economic well-being is humility on the part of politicians.
President Obama is again turning his attention to the elusive economic recovery. His "pivot" will be for naught, however, as long as he continues to ignore two important points: first, government is a major squanderer of scarce resources, and second, its regulations are impediments to saving and investment.
We live in a world of scarcity. At any given time our ends outnumber the means to achieve them. Hence we economize so that we can achieve as many of our ends as possible. Resources, labor, and time devoted to one purpose can't also be used for other purposes, and the alternative forgone is the true cost of any action. We individually choose among competing ends after assessing the trade-offs, because we don't want inadvertently to give up something we prefer in exchange for something we don't value as much. The marketplace, when it's free of government privilege and regulation, lets us accomplish this to a remarkable degree. In doing so, it raises our living standards and creates an orderly environment, thanks to the price system, which coordinates and facilitates our plans.
Government throws this process out of whack. When politicians forcibly extract resources from us (through taxation) and borrow, they leave us less with which we can improve our lives through entrepreneurship, business formation, and the like. But, you may ask, aren't the politicians' projects worthwhile? Actually, many government projects are of zero value or worse. The costly global empire is beyond useless: it endangers us. Other projects might be useful, but — and this is key — we can't be sure, because they are not subject to the market test. If a private entrepreneur acquires resources in a quest for profit, she must create value for consumers or she will fail. The market's profit-and-loss test will see to that. That test is administered by countless millions of consumers who are free to take or leave what the entrepreneur offers. This test is relayed back to the investors who lend money to entrepreneurs for productive ventures. They know that if the entrepreneur fails, they will also suffer losses. So they must scrutinize projects in terms of their potential, ultimately, to please free consumers.
The upshot is that consumers' un-coerced actions signal (through prices and profit/loss) what pleases them and what does not. Suppliers must pay heed or face bankruptcy. This explains why markets, when not burdened by government privileges and arbitrary rules, work so well to raise living standards. Note how government projects differ essentially from market projects. Politicians and bureaucrats obtain their money through force, not consensual mutual exchange. (What happens if you tell the IRS you don't want to purchase its "services"?) Even the money obtained through voluntary loans is expected to be repaid with the taxpayers' money. It's taxation all the way down. Moreover, government "services" are not offered in a competitive market where consumers are free to take them or leave them. Since we're forced to pay a monopoly provider regardless of whether we want the "services," at the point of delivery they appear to be free. You can't opt out of paying for "free public schools" even if you don't want to use them. Everyone pays into Social Security, a (meager) pension plan, under threat of force. In other words, government services are not true services in the market sense because they face no market test from consumers free to withhold their money without penalty.
The market test assures that bad trade-offs are avoided, or at least quickly corrected if they are made. If steel is being used to make one product when consumers are demanding something else, the competitive entrepreneurial process sees to it that steel will be redirected. No corresponding process exists in the political realm. It contains no incentives to look out for the consumers' welfare. Instead, we have political theater and value destruction. This would be bad enough, but it's actually worse. What government does with the stolen resources typically makes it harder for us to use the remaining resources productively. Uncertainty about future taxation and regulation, for example, increases the risk of investment and hence reduces it.
An indispensable prerequisite of economic well-being is humility on the part of politicians.
~~~~~~~
What is going wrong
with our black teens? Who is paying
attention?
BALTIMORE (WJZ) — A man is brutally attacked by a group of teens in Little Italy. Police say four of the attackers are in custody. Three of them are juveniles. The victim was walking home from work when he was attacked near Bank and Exeter Streets. Police say the brutality of the crime is why three juveniles arrested are being charged as adults. A brutal attack in the heart of Little Italy. Police say a man walking home from work at an area restaurant is attacked and severely beaten near Bank and Exeter Streets by a mob of at least ten teens. Four of the alleged attackers, three of them minors, have been arrested and charged. “It’s very upsetting because you feel suspect now. Now you see a group of kids, children, and you have to worry if they’re not going to pounce on you,” said Giovanna Blattermann, neighbor.
BALTIMORE (WJZ) — A man is brutally attacked by a group of teens in Little Italy. Police say four of the attackers are in custody. Three of them are juveniles. The victim was walking home from work when he was attacked near Bank and Exeter Streets. Police say the brutality of the crime is why three juveniles arrested are being charged as adults. A brutal attack in the heart of Little Italy. Police say a man walking home from work at an area restaurant is attacked and severely beaten near Bank and Exeter Streets by a mob of at least ten teens. Four of the alleged attackers, three of them minors, have been arrested and charged. “It’s very upsetting because you feel suspect now. Now you see a group of kids, children, and you have to worry if they’re not going to pounce on you,” said Giovanna Blattermann, neighbor.
The
assault happened in front of Giovanna Blattermann’s house. She’s also watched
video of the attack–captured by her neighbors surveillance camera. While the
suspects took the man’s phone, Blattermann says that’s not what they were
after. “They beat this boy. He got up, he’d run, they beat him. He got up,
he’d run, they beat him. He got up, he’d run, they beat him,” said Blattermann.
The
suspects range in age from 16 to 19, but police say because of the brutality of
the crime, the minors aren’t being charged lightly.
~~~~~~
U.S. churches warned of 'jihadist' threat - Drew Zahn
Man
tells police within 2 weeks everyone will know his name
Police
in Fort Collins, Colo., are warning local churches to report any suspicious
behavior after a self-proclaimed “Islamist jihadist” threatened Mormons and
Catholics “would be destroyed” in the next two weeks.
According
to the Coloradoan, police released a memo describing an unnamed white man in
his early 30s who was stopped for attempting to shoot a video while driving.
Wearing a T-shirt wrapped around his head and a bandana and sunglasses over his
face, the man reportedly claimed he was the Archangel Michael and told police
everyone would know who he was in the next two weeks, but didn’t elaborate or
make threats specific enough to warrant arrest.
The
man is also reportedly linked to a white Honda coupe spray-painted with “F—
DHS” (Department of Homeland Security) on the trunk, “Rev 14-7″ on its side and
“YHVH” (the Hebrew name for God) on the back bumper and hood. The
verse on the vehicle, Revelation 14:7, reads, “Fear God, and give glory to him;
for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and
earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.” At this point, however, Fort Collins
police have told the public there is no evidence of immediate danger. Sgt. Paul
Wood further told the Coloradoan he doesn’t believe the man has a criminal
background nor is wanted for any crimes, which is why police haven’t released
his name. “(His behavior is) way out of line for what we consider terrorism,”
said Wood, who is also a liaison to the Colorado Information Analysis Center,
established after 9/11 as a way to coordinate terrorism prevention. “Right now,
we don’t feel there’s any danger to the public.”
Still,
Wood said, “With recent and not-recent events, we can’t take any [threats] for
granted.” Rev. Steven Voss, of St. Joseph’s Catholic Church in Fort Collins,
told the Coloradoan he’s heard from other religious leaders the man is
“non-violent,” but that he’s made harassing and derogatory comments outside
churches, notably in Utah. When he first read the Fort Collins Police Services
memo, Voss said, its words of caution made his “blood run cold.” He also read
the bulletin during Mass on Saturday and reported an “audible gasp” from those
seated in the pews. To reassure the congregation, Voss invited a police officer to stand
watch during weekend services.
~~~~~~
CAIR Director: Muslims Are Above The Law
by Tim Brown
According
to the leader of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Muslims living in
America should not be bound by U.S. law. “If we are practicing Muslims, we are
above the law of the land,” said Herman Mustafa Carroll, executive director of
the Dallas-Fort Worth CAIR branch. I suppose at the very least, Carroll is
being honest about what practicing Muslims believe. This is what we’ve been
telling people all along. Now CAIR is becoming a bit more vocal about what they
are really about. Carroll made the statement at a rally in Austin, Texas as
part of a nationwide effort to hold “Muslim Capitol Day” events. According to
the event website Muslims came to the Texas capitol to “promote civic and
political activism throughout the wider Muslim community.”
~~~~~~
The Disgusting Lie Called “The War On Women.”
by Frank Camp
Walter
Lippmann said: “When distant and unfamiliar and complex things are communicated
to great masses of people, the truth suffers a considerable and often a radical
distortion. The complex is made over into the simple, the hypothetical into the
dogmatic, and the relative into an absolute.”
We
live in a society in which we are often forced to dilute our intellect to
accommodate the lowest common denominator. We live in a world in which complex
ideas are chipped away into terribly simple ones because the general public is
unwilling to stretch their brains in order to understand something outside
their small, carefully constructed world. Unfortunately, this dumbing down
often leads to misunderstandings. There are so many important issues in our
world that need to be thought about carefully, one of which is the oft
mentioned “War on Women.” The Left in the United States constantly bring up the
GOP’s supposed “War on Women.”
The
Liberal talking point is that Conservatives want to “tell women what to do with
their bodies,” that they want to “force women back into the kitchen.” There are numerous lines used by the
Left to try to legitimize this invented war. And because our society lowers
every issue into the gutter of the “lowest common denominator,” lines
are all we hear: talking points. The Left capitalizes on this, using slogans and
small truth-twists to manipulate the masses. In the following segment,
I will break down both sides of the “War on Women.”
What
Liberals say:
1. Conservatives want women to revert to
1950’s stereotypes, serving men as their masters.
2. Conservatives don’t want women in
control of their healthcare; they want men in control of women’s healthcare.
3. Conservatives couldn’t care less about
the suffering of rape victims and victims of incest.
4. Conservatives want to force upon women
the burden of an unwanted child.
5. Men shouldn’t have any say in abortion
law.
Those
are the basics that you will hear coming out of the mouths of Liberals in
reference to the “War on Women.”
What
Conservatives say:
1. Conservatives want to
protect the lives of unborn children, which means abolishing abortion,
except in cases in which the life of the mother would be in jeopardy. In that
case, it is up to the woman, the doctor and the family to decide what to do.
2. Conservatives believe that life begins at
conception because all of the genetic material exists upon the union of egg and
sperm. After conception, what is developing inside a woman’s body is a
human being. This human being is developing in the same way that a flower seed
develops after being planted and watered. A sprout emerges from the seed, but
remains underground until it can breach the surface. Does the fact that the
flower hasn’t yet breached the surface mean that it isn’t alive? Does it
make it any less of a flower? No, it is simply in one stage of
development. We, as human beings, are continuously in stages of development; a
two year old isn’t as developed as a ten year old. Does that mean that a two
year old is less human? No. So why is an infant inside the womb considered less
human that one outside of the womb? Why do seconds matter? Why is one doctor in
prison for severing the spinal cord of an infant seconds after birth, and
another doctor is praised for severing the head of an infant just before birth?
Is a flower not a flower until it blooms?
3. Conservatives do care
about the suffering of victims of rape and incest. However, we also care about the suffering of the
unborn. The fact that an infant is a result of an atrocious crime
doesn’t make it any less human, it doesn’t make it terminable. In
addition, Conservatives don’t believe that taking the life of an unborn child
will change history; it will not erase the pain of the crime committed
against a woman. Finally, only 6% of abortions are a result of rape, incest, and threats
to the lives of mothers, 94% are elective. The Left wants us to believe that
99% of abortions are because of trauma. That is what is known as lying.
4. Conservatives don’t want to force a
child upon anyone. There are plenty of couples that would happily adopt an
unwanted child. Just because you don’t want a child doesn’t mean you are allowed to
kill it.
5. As a man, I have just as much of a
right to discuss abortion as a woman does. I said it. I don’t have to cut off
my own hand to know it’s a bad idea; I don’t have to be black to stand
against segregation. The human mind is capable of an understanding and an
empathy that is far reaching.
This
“War” is a lie.
The issue of abortion and contraception is exceedingly complex, and to reduce
it to sloganeering and talking points is dangerous and irresponsible. But that
is what the Left wants. The Left knows that the lowest common denominator will
respond to slogans. The Left also knows that if abortion were to be talked
about intellectually, and in an open arena, they would lose the debate. They
need slogans and chants, talking points and screaming spokespeople. Don’t allow
the truth to be radically distorted. Don’t be afraid of reality. The
“War on Women” is an absolute lie, and if we sit back and accept the dumbed
down version of life, simply because we are too lazy to think, we are
contributing to the slaughter of millions, and the further lowering of our
national intelligence.
~~~~~~
Opposition To Sen. Mike Lee's Defunding Obamacare
Demonstrates Republicans Have Been Castrated
What
do you do when the people you vote for no longer represent you? As the days of
America’s fundamental transformation carry us further and further into the
abyss, more and more Americans are waking to the debacle that is Obamacare. Ironically as the list of those
opposing grows among the citizens, the ones we voted for based on the promise
of repeal must have been castrated or something because they have all but
jumped ship on the repeal efforts. Why? Knowing the progressives that
call themselves Republicans today I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised to
learn they are playing a radical game to keep us confused and allow the blame
for the coming “train wreck” to fall on the shoulders of Republican Party.
Would that really surprise anyone who is keeping their eye on the ball? The
Republicans in general allow themselves to be blamed for everything because
they are afraid of not being liked. To them saving the country is about as
imperative as a high school popularity contest. Once again I find
myself regretting my support for Tom Coburn (R-OK) and other so called
“Republicans” as they take a lead role in opposing Senator Mike Lee’s (R-UT)
legislation to defund the increasingly unpopular healthcare law. Many
Republicans are calling these efforts foolish because they believe it will
destroy the Republican Party. I have news for you Republicans:
You are destroying the Republican
Party by being cowards and failing to articulate the difference between real
conservatism that defends the individual, and the Marxist based liberalism that
is responsible for the destruction of Detroit. Failure to realize this and take
the lead in defending freedom makes you more responsible for the destruction of
this nation than the liberal democrats. Why? Because we expect that from them,
you are supposed to be the checks and balances against the authoritative
statist position the democrats represent. You have a lot of nerve as far as I
am concerned. You play the game the liberals play by allowing yourself largesse
off the public treasury and then have the audacity to snub your nose at us when
faced with the obvious mandate you have been given. That’s fine; you can pack
your bags now because you are leaving next fall.
The
biggest problem with the republicans is that they fall in to the game of
“scheming” and planning, not realizing that the liberals have mastered the
tactic of making everything stick to them. They actually believe that once
Obamacare is fully implemented the momentum for repeal will shift and they will
be able to seize the moment. The momentum for repeal is gaining now and
they are not seizing any “moment;” rather, they are showing their
constituencies their true colors-yellow. They are showing America that
they no
longer have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to a 1960′s radical who believes
in socialism because he is a cry baby who thinks everything is unfair. So in a
misguided effort to show they can be fair they are letting him get away with
everything he wants, like crybabies usually do.
~~~~~~
Obama Suggests Only Lawyers Understand the Constitution
By Elizabeth
Harrington
President
Obama suggested in an interview with the New York Times that was published on
Saturday that you need to be a lawyer to understand the U.S. Constitution.
The
president made the suggestion when talking about members of Congress who have
argued he does not have the constitutional authority to unilaterally suspend
enforcement of parts of the Obamacare law.
The
Times asked Obama if he “consulted” with his lawyer when making the decision to
suspend the employer mandate, which would require businesses with more than 50
employees to buy them health insurance, and which was supposed to take effect
on Jan. 1, 2014.
“[I]f
you heard me on stage today, what I said was that I will seize any opportunity
I can find to work with Congress to strengthen the middle class, improve their
prospects, improve their security,” Obama said.
“But where
Congress is unwilling to act, I will take whatever administrative steps that I
can in order to do right by the American people,” he said. “And if Congress
thinks that what I’ve done is inappropriate or wrong in some fashion, they’re
free to make that case,” Obama added. “But there’s not an action that I
take that you don't have some folks in Congress who say that I'm usurping my
authority. Some of those folks think I usurp my authority by having the
gall to win the presidency. And I don't think that's a secret.” “But,
ultimately, I’m not concerned about their opinions--very few of them, by the
way, are lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers,” the president said. Uhg! Arrogant, aloof and so on.
~~~~~~
Too Many College Professors as Leftist Bullies by David L. Goetsch
Frequent
readers are familiar with my disdain for college professors who pontificate
rather than teach, coerce rather than inspire, and indoctrinate rather than
enlighten.
Professors of this ilk are a cancer on the soul of higher education. They
undermine its very purpose. My colleague Archie Jones and I were inspired
to write our book Liberal Tyranny in Higher Education (www.americanvision.com)
by this very phenomenon. My fellow author, John Rissalada, often
writes of his verbal duels with leftist bullies passing themselves off as
college professors.
Colleges
and universities nationwide are experiencing numerous problems—many of their
own making—but one thing that is alive and well on most campuses is liberal
intolerance. Readers might remember a recent example of this phenomenon:
the professor at Florida Atlantic University who instructed students to write
the name “Jesus” on a sheet of paper ad then throw the paper on the floor and
stomp on it. A student who refused was suspended—a clear violation of his
First Amendment rights and the concept of academic freedom. University
officials quelled the controversy somewhat by claiming the professor had been
removed from the classroom. He had, but not for disciplinary reasons.
He was removed for his own protection as the result of death threats.
Not
surprisingly, university officials responded to public outrage in a predictable
manner: they removed the offending professor from the classroom just long
enough to allow the controversy to die down. Now that the media glare is
focused elsewhere, Dr. Deandre Poole is back in the classroom purporting to
“teach” his intercultural communications class. Is he any less a leftist
bully for the experience? Don’t count on it. One of the reasons people like
Dr. Poole go into higher education is that colleges and universities allow them
to espouse, advocate, indoctrinate, and pontificate without fear of
repercussion. The fact that they are paid to teach, guide,
instruct, and develop has no bearing on matters. Tenure affords
them better protection than a concrete bomb shelter.
No
nation pays more for its colleges and universities than America, and the price
we pay is exacted in more ways than just tax dollars and tuition. We
pay an even higher price by putting our best and brightest young people under
the tutelage of professors who hate everything America stands for and are
determined to tear our country down one student at a time.
Unfortunately, they are succeeding. In our book Liberal Tyranny in Higher
Education, we quote David Horowitz on the purposes of higher education:
“The
central purposes…are the pursuit of truth, the discovery of new knowledge
through scholarship and research, the study and reasoned criticism of
intellectual and cultural traditions, the teaching and general development of
students to help them become creative individuals and productive citizens of a
pluralistic democracy, and the transmission of knowledge and learning to
society at large. Free inquiry and free speech within the academic
community are indispensable to the achievement of these goals.”
This
is about as good a summary of the purposes of higher education as you will find
anywhere. It does not say that liberal professors with nefarious agendas
cannot state their misguided views on the issues of the day, but it does say
that students should also get ample opportunities to state their views without
fear of retribution of any kind. In fact, it goes even further.
Students should be encouraged to think critically, disagree openly, and state
views that are irretrievably at odds with those of the professor. Free
speech and free inquiry are part of a concept known as academic freedom. This concept is the
cornerstone of higher education. Professors who violate the First Amendment and
academic freedom or who apply the concept as if it were a one-way street should
be more properly referred to as “suppressors” rather than professors. They
should be stripped of their tenure and shown the door.
~~~~~~
No comments:
Post a Comment