Thursday, February 24, 2011
At what point do we accept the preponderance of evidence that we have a president who does not believe in individual liberty freedom and the American way? How many examples do we need before a conclusion can be drawn?
Bill Whittle has spoken out.
It will be interesting to witness the resilience of the American system in the years that follow the current president's deliberate attempts to damage it.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Saturday, February 19, 2011
In 2008, Miller contributed just $250 to the North Carolina House Democratic Committee in Raleigh. In October, however, Miller sent $10,000 to that committee and $14,000 to the coffers of the state Senate campaign counterpart.
It would be interesting to follow these donations to their recipients.
We all have the choice not to deal with the financial industry; there is freedom in that.
But we have no choice but to tolerate governance that sends $13 Trillion to the financial industry from our pockets. There is no freedom in that.
Brad Miller voted to send his friends in the financial industry $13 trillion of the citizenry's income.
Americans oppose businesses on the take and the rancid politicians like Brad Miller who support them.
Rep. Brad Miller - Cheating the American people.
I've been forced offline by work. Been slammed. Tenants disappearing in the dark of night have a way of leaving me a lot of work, more so when the property is out of town.
But, here is a little something to say I'm still around.....
Wisconsin spurred by the public is fighting for its future as are the Wisconsin unions. One lit the path taken while the other lights the way forward.
The Madison Blues:
However much money the public sector unions fling into the maw of Democratic party politics, the old system is going down. Workers will actually do better in states that act quickly; the longer the day of reckoning is postponed, the higher the bill will be, and the more savage and draconian the cuts will have to become.
But if the blue social model and 4.0 liberalism are losing, what will take their place?
- 1. Protectionism
- 2. "dismantling minimum wage laws, a full scale assault on private labor unions, and an aggressive deregulation of as much of the economy as possible. "
To put it in a nutshell, the only way forward for the United States is to unleash the full transformational power of information technology in the knowledge and service industries even if this entails (as it surely will) the destruction of the current institutional, bureaucratic and guild-based systems on which we currently rely.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Where once conservatives beat the drum for liberty in Iraq, they currently beat the drum for obligation and respect for an ally. I am loyal to a fault so I have had great sympathy for the conservative argument as it related to Mubarak, but in the end I felt the potential for freedom and liberty outweighed any sense of loyalty to Mubarak.
Mubarak is gone now. Where does that leave us?
I believe the left hindered democracy in Iraq for political reasons but with democracy possibly on the march in the middle east that legacy becomes a political liability. Therefore they ignore the obvious success in Iraq in favor of defining the genesis of what may be the democratization of the Mideast as Egypt.
Though no effort of their own events have unfolded in Egypt such that democrats are attempting to claim the mantel of freedom and liberty after actively resisting it for years in Iraq. Chris Matthews has gone so far as to ask if what has happened in Egypt may be the start of the democratization of the middle east. He asks this despite the fact that there is a democracy currently in Iraq doing just that - prompting citizens of neighboring nations to question why they don't have self determination themselves.
If we (the right) don't start claiming Iraq to be the foreign policy success that it has become and the source of the desire for freedom felt by the citizenry across the Mideast then the left is going to define that source such that they are presented in the best possible light themselves when they should be sinking due to the political dead weight of resisting Iraqi liberty.
Should we really be so concerned with loyalty toward the now deposed Mubarak that we allow the party that profited politically from resisting liberty in Iraq to steal the mantel of liberty from us by taking advantage of the random events within Egypt?
It's time to move on - Mubarak is gone - the military is making the right noises ...
Are we the really the stupid party?
I noticed a similar scenario to the one above and posted on it this past election season shortly after Brad Miller visited Mortex on a campaign stop.
We're being fleeced and Brad Miller's votes recorded his support for our impoverishment. The next time Brad Miller claims he his on your side against abusive bank behavior remember he is currently picking your pocket.
Vid via Randy's Right
Friday, February 11, 2011
Civilian deaths are a horrible thing, but using those deaths to argue against Iraqi freedom, liberty and self determination is immoral.
It is nice to not be alone...
We need a foreign policy that not only supports freedom in the abstract but is guided by long-range practical principles to achieve it - a Freedom Doctrine composed of the following elements:
(1) The United States supports democracy throughout the Middle East. It will use its influence to help democrats everywhere throw off dictatorial rule.
(2) Democracy is more than just elections. It requires a free press, the rule of law, the freedom to organize, the establishment of independent political parties and the peaceful transfer of power. Therefore, the transition to democracy and initial elections must allow time for these institutions, most notably political parties, to establish themselves.
(3) The only U.S. interest in the internal governance of these new democracies is to help protect them against totalitarians, foreign and domestic. The recent Hezbollah coup in Lebanon and the Hamas dictatorship in Gaza dramatically demonstrate how anti-democratic elements that achieve power democratically can destroy the very democracy that empowered them.
(4) Therefore, just as during the Cold War the United States helped keep European communist parties out of power (to see them ultimately wither away), it will be U.S. policy to oppose the inclusion of totalitarian parties - the Muslim Brotherhood or, for that matter, communists - in any government, whether provisional or elected, in newly liberated Arab states.
Via the AP:
Caught up in stunning news like the rest of the world, President Barack Obama learned of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's resignation during an Oval Office meeting. He absorbed images of celebration on television and prepared to make an afternoon statement.
A Diminished America..
"In these grave circumstances that the country is passing through, President Hosni Mubarak has decided to leave his position as president of the republic," a grim-looking Suleiman said. "He has mandated the Armed Forces Supreme Council to run the state. God is our protector and succor."
Hmm. Will the military bring liberty or despotism to Egypt?
The question now turned to how the military, Egypt's most powerful institution, will handle the transition in power. Earlier in the day, the Armed Forces Supreme Council — a body of top generals — vowed to guide the country to greater democracy.
In a statement hours before Suleiman's announcement, it said it was committed "to sponsor the legitimate demands of the people and endeavorfor their implementation within a defined timetable ... until achieving a peaceful transition all through a democratic society aspired by the people."
Abdel-Rahman Samir, one of the youth organizers of the protests, said the protest movement would now open negotiations with the military over democratic reform but vowed protests would continue to ensure change is carried out.
Seem positive, but if the events of the past week are any indication ......
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Be careful with those nunchucks...
- On Tuesday the Obama Administration asked Hosni Mubarak to step aside.
- On Wednesday they said that transitioning power “now means yesterday.”
- On Saturday morning the Obama Administration said Mubarak must stay.
- On Saturday evening the Obama Administration said Mubarak should step aside.
- On Sunday Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Mubarak must stay in power.
- On Tuesday the Obama Administration said that political reform will be a gradual process.
Synopsis Via GatewayPundit
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Iran, Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Belarus. It seems rattling the cage has become fashionable across the Mideast.
Some of these are genuine movements for democracy while others are less so. In some the uprisings are out and out co-opted by non democratic forces.
In the wake of the chaos in Egypt I have been wrestling with what our appropriate response should be to this wave of uprisings.
It seems that it is not fashionable to bring up the Iraq war, but viewing the events currently taking place in the Mideast without including the changes that have befallen Iraq over the past decade would lead to decidedly wanting conclusions.
One of the reasons behind invading Iraq was to sow the seed of democracy in the Arab world. The example, it was hoped, would grow the strength of pro democratic groups within neighboring countries by convincing the citizenry that an Arabic democracy is possible.
In the years that followed the invasion of Iraq the US did not support a dictator or install a strongman in Iraq, instead the US gave the people of Iraq the time necessary to create their own "democracy" in whatever form best suited their culture.
But what US did was greater than that.
US actions in Iraq may have created a desire for freedom, an "I want what they have in Iraq" feeling, which freely flows throughout the Mideast. The subjugated people of the Mideast are aware of the freedom Iraq now enjoys and they realize that their fears of the US acting as a colonial power have not materialized. The US did not steal Iraq's oil or subjugate its people. Iraq is now a nation unto its own but under the influence of its citizenry. Who in the Mideast would not want what Iraq has?
Unforeseen or not though, it seems that Bush's approach of installing a democracy in the heart of the Mideast has resulted in destabilizing non democratic nations across the region regardless of how friendly they are to the US. As such, it is becoming clear that Bush's approach to Iraq reached beyond the his own administration and could well reach into other administrations beyond the Obama's.
If this is the case, then the desire for democracy has become the ether through which current and future Mideast diplomacy should be framed.
This is a wonderful development as the default desire for stability among with our nation and the nations of the world frequently leads to a lackadaisical interest in liberty, and often, an outright support for a lack thereof in the Mideast.
But how should the US approach freedom movements that may have been co-opted by extremists in traditionally friendly nations as in the case of Egypt?
Using the Muslim Brotherhood as an example one can easily conceive of an Egypt worse off tomorrow than today if the Muslim Brotherhood were able to ride a wave of democratic desire bolstered by American support to power. One wonders, though, how long-lived such rule would be if the same individuals who pushed for overthrow received less freedom rather than more as a result of their efforts. This would especially be the case if the Muslim Brotherhood represents only a small fraction of the population currently rattling the cage. In retrospect, would the Muslim world view the US as having once again supported another strongman in the Muslim Brotherhood?
Alternatively, consider the results of not supporting what might be, predominantly, a democratic movement. It could chill the desire for democracy among populations of nearby non democratic nations. Imagine their thoughts: Why take the risk of resisting the current regime when the leader of the free world doesn't have your back, or worse yet, actively supports your foe?
Perhaps supporting only those uprisings that are obviously democratic would be appropriate while standing astride those that are not clearly democratic would be wise . This could conceivably be what is in the thoughts of many in the US who generally support freedom and liberty, but currently support Mubarak. Again, this approach to supporting the spread of democracy in the Mideast could be viewed as inconsistent from the perspective of the Mideast.
The last way to play it would be for the US to remain silent rather than come out against undemocratic uprisings. It seems far fetched to consider this as an option but sadly it seems to have been our response to the truly democratic Iranian uprising.
In the end, the strength of a democratic Iraq will likely counter the US's often inscrutable Mideast foreign policy from the perspective of the Arab world (and mine). We are fortunate to have an Iraq today that will hopefully permanently provide the ether through which freedom may spread throughout the Mideast... despite ourselves.
Lastly, I would be remiss if I were not to mention that the thanks for this increased desire for freedom among the people of the Mideast goes to the many who sacrificed all and to a single embattled man's love and tenacity.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Balanced Budget Act (S13) was up for debate in the Senate. Grousing minority Democrats attempted to protect state funded business recruitment with an amendment to S13 despite an abject failure business recruitment to grow jobs over the past 10 years -- $1.7 billion incentives with a return of 300 net jobs.
Six term Republican from Mecklenburg County and GOP leader Bob Rucho in the Senate laid it on in response...
The amendment failed 30-18. As for the bill itself it passed by the same margin.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
On Uncommon Knowledge - Stanley Kurtz:
Other speakers follow Kurtz:
- Milton Friedman
- Thomas Sowell
- Prince Hans-Adam II
- Gary Becker
- Victor Davis Hanson
- Claire Berlinski
- etc. etc. etc.
Friday, February 4, 2011
...Almost everyone in the West, and many in the developing world, has bought into some elements of the idea. What it boils down to is a hubristic notion that we have the knowledge and wisdom to organize our fellow men for a collective "good" that we define. Ancient emperors of the pagan world used to operate on this principle; the divine-right monarchs of Europe did so, as have Marxist revolutionaries, fascists, and autocratic rulers in the Islamic world.
But the modern West too has bought into this idea, hook, line, and sinker. We demonstrate our fealty to it whenever we speak in complacent accents of government, operating on some organizing principle, "creating jobs" for us, saving us from poverty and death, preventing all forms of injustice, saving the planet, or properly allocating "society's resources."
Other peoples have paid the price of government-worship more visibly and summarily than we have. But the monstrous debt staring down the world's advanced nations is part of the price we are paying, and it is an inevitable result of our decision to give over so much of our lives to secular, material collectivism. Collectivist schemes produce only debt, resentment, discouragement, and want because they put humans and human ideas in the place of God.
Barack Obama didn't start our civilization on its current path. In a sense, as I have noted in other writings, he is the one left holding the bag as the civilization that produced him is confronted with the bankruptcy of its bad ideas. He knows only how to tax, spend, regulate, and discuss taxation, spending, and regulation, because that is what our civilization has given itself over to. We have put government policy and government programs in the place of God, and until we get our own minds and hearts right on that score, we might as well be up there at the podium with the president, suffering the slings and arrows of unkind reviews and public criticism.
I would add forcing our nation to operate within the Keynesian mechanism, an argument to allow the few to control the many, has bestowed longterm misery on our nation.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
...despite government's persistent abuse of wealth generating corporations and individuals.
In a time when school districts everywhere are watching budgets shrink, a cluster of eight struggling schools in Charlotte will be getting a $55 million boost from some of the city's top business leaders and philanthropists.
Credentials have their place, but using a lack thereof in curtailing the public's right to complain is not one.
Shutting up the rabble:
In the long-running saga of where and how to widen Falls of Neuse Road in North Raleigh, Cox and NORCHOA have been trying to convince the N.C. DOT that two additional traffic signals at strategic locations near their homes would make the busy road a lot safer.
The DOT's response? Not only are the residents wrong, they've also broken the law by challenging DOT's conclusions as mere citizens.
In December, State Traffic Engineer J. Kevin Lacy filed a complaint with the N.C. Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors against Cox. Lacy alleged that a critique of DOT's position, written by the group and mailed by Cox to his congressman, U.S. Rep. Brad Miller, among others, qualified as illegally practicing traffic engineering without a license.
The examiners board notified Cox in a letter dated Dec. 28 that he is under investigation, because "Allegedly, this document"—the critique—"should have been prepared and certified by a Professional Engineer" and was not.
NC has a state sponsored jobs-making machine?
Governor Bev Perdue has come to Charlotte many times since the economy soured to make jobs announcements, presenting new companies to the community like gifts.
But those companies also get gifts to come here, and now the Republican-controlled Senate wants to take away Perdue's incentive money in order to fill a $3.7 billion budget hole....
Perdue's camp says doing so will kill the state's job-making machine, sending companies to other areas.
Of course! It helps hide the deleterious impacts of high taxes and abusive behaviour toward corporations such as theft from Alcoa.
Beating current corporations about the head with one hand while drawing in new corporations with sweeteners the other only serves to drive away the best corporations looking for a long term home.
A friendly environment for corporations with in NC would be easier, cheaper simpler and lead to a more prosperous NC.
Sadly, it would also mean Bev Perdue would be harder pressed to make the claim that she brought jobs to NC.
Peter Berger, Jewish Identity in America:
Quite a few years ago I was on a panel with a prominent American rabbi. I don’t recall what the panel was about. All I recall is a brief exchange I had with the rabbi. He said that he was telling his children that the Holocaust could happen in America. He turned to me and asked whether I thought that he was paranoid. I replied that, on the contrary, he was not paranoid enough. He could only imagine being killed because he is a Jew. Depending on circumstances, he might be killed because he is an American, or a bourgeois, or white.
We can all be subgroups in America,
Or we can all be a Americans.
Sadly, a Pollyannish thought,
amid leftist love of diversity.
Big H/T Washington Rebel
Prior to the Great Depression our "safety net" was predominantly private and functioned efficiently, but during the depression it became strained to the point of near failure due to the fact that as a private system it depended on current dollars of which there were few. Government appropriately stepped in with its ability to borrow from future growth. Hey, it was the Keynesian thing to do.
The problem is that government never stepped back out, and has, in fact, grown its presence in the "safety net" sector of the US to the point of relegating our charity driven private "safety net" to an after thought.
What has been lost in this transition?
In short, the morality of the voluntary. When living off the graciousness of others, seeing the eyes of volunteers, feeling the expectations of betterment, feeling the loss of those who have given, when all of this is under-girded with the morality of voluntarily donated dollars, recipients respond, not with lethargy, but with obligation born of gratitude.
All of the above is lost when funneling our "safety net" through governance and that loss is the source of the inefficiency within our current system. The biggest loss, though, is that of morality. When dollars are forced from some to help others those dollars are amoral, they lack the morality of voluntary action, they become divorced from the human element, and as such, become little more than pieces of paper with which to support sloth.
Government dollars are soulless. They are given without expectation of self betterment, without expressing the pain of those parting with their dollars, without love and most importantly, without the morality of voluntary choice.
Truly, should government be so involved with our "safety net" that it is a permanent fixture throughout the economic cycle? What we have now is neither Keynesian, nor moral.
Perhaps we should reexamine the assumptions that have guided policy for the last 75 years. Maybe government should get involved only during economic downturns. Hey, it's the Keynesian thing to do.