Monthly Archives: May 2012

California’s High Speed Folly

Your Tax Dollars!

More news of the stimulus’s failure emerged this week with CBO’s report citing how it may have cost $4.1 million per job, but the story that should be on everyone’s minds concerning the Obama’s agenda is California’s high speed rail project.  Calls for a high speed rail system by the Obama administration have been enhanced given China’s successful completion of their system last summer.  However, if you look at the current California project, the scale of failure is epical and our tax dollars are being poured into it.

In a rare instance, CNN gave a rather insightful report on how this proposed high speed rail is actually three times more than its estimated cost. The railroad project itself seemed sound.  A line from Los Angeles to San Francisco spanning 2oo miles was a palatable initiative for Californians, which is why they voted for a $10 billion dollar bond measure back in 2008.  However, the original estimate was in the ball park of about $34 billion dollars. It is now  projected to cost a monstrous $198 billion dollars.  Additionally, Drew Griffin, CNN Investigative Correspondent, reported that not a single rail has been laid in the four years since the initiative was passed.

This marks another stinging failure of the domestic agenda of the Obama administration.  First clean energy, now high speed rail networks.  It fits nicely into the description George Will aptly made about American liberalism on Charlie Rose last August as”an amalgamation of appetites of parochial interests.”   The project is now revised under the new Chairman of California’s Railway Authority, Dan Richard, but it’s very different original high speed blueprint. Griffin stated:

It turns out, the latest plan could be for a much slower train, not actually the high- speed futuristic cartoon California voters approved four years ago. More of a hybrid that goes slower, makes a few more stops and doesn’t quite deliver the L.A. to San Francisco promise of just a few hours.

And that’s not the half of it. This is about to become really political. California’s high-speed rail has one huge backer — President Barack Obama — and that is where you come in. The administration has pledged $3.5 billion in stimulus money, also known as federal tax dollars, and that’s just so far. Now, California admits it will need even more, tens of billions of dollars more from federal taxpayers to finish it.

But first, you have to start. And that’s where it really gets dicey. The foundational segment, the first stretch of track, will cost at least $6 billion alone and, under the new plan, will connect Fresno to Burbank. It won’t go anywhere near San Francisco. And in the process, will dissect generations-old dairy farms, nut orchards and towns that don’t want it.

That’s not the worst of it.  Apparently, Barack Obama, who continues to be a staunch proponent of this project:

 has pledged $3.5 billion in stimulus money, also known as federal tax dollars, and that’s just so far. Now, California admits it will need even more, tens of billions of dollars more from federal taxpayers to finish it.

But first, you have to start. And that’s where it really gets dicey. The foundational segment, the first stretch of track, will cost at least $6 billion alone and, under the new plan, will connect Fresno to Burbank. It won’t go anywhere near San Francisco. And in the process, will dissect generations-old dairy farms, nut orchards and towns that don’t want it.

However, even with the inflated costs and objections by local farmers, Dan Richard and the rest at the Railroad Authority aren’t giving up.  After all, as Griffin reported, “they’ve already got the promised $3 billion of your tax dollars in federal stimulus. California may not get another dime from President Obama, but it has no intention of giving back the $3 billion already promised or the billions more from California voters.”  This Rube Goldberg project is expected to take ten years to finish.  Who’s lining up to get their first ticket?

Could Syria be another intervention to no-where?

As many as ten thousand people have been killed since the uprising against Syrian President Bashar-al Assad began roughly 14 months ago. But the newly discovered massacre in the village of Houla this past weekend could be a game changer. It unleashed some of the worst violence yet, killing over a hundred people and sparking international outrage. In a uniform show of protest nations across the world, including the United States, expelled Syrian diplomats.

Who actually carried out the massacre is unknown, but as the death toll rises, pressure to take more action builds. From the campaign trail in tones reminiscent of “Dubya”, Romney is calling “for more assertive measures to end the Assad regime.” On the Hill, Senator McCain has criticized the President’s “feckless foreign policy” for punting on Syria. On the Left, UN Ambassador Rice, after months of tabling the military option, now believes the international community may have to take “action outside” the failed UN peace plan. Anxious to stay in the public eye, Secretary of State Clinton entered the fray this week insisting that with each passing day the case for military intervention looks stronger.

Sadly, despite the series of disastrous, self-defeating interventions over the last twenty years from Somalia and Haiti to Iraq and Afghanistan, most inside the US government are convinced American military power is always the “global force for good,” regardless of the outcome. The idea that US national interests are not furthered by more interventions in the Middle East or anywhere else in the third world does not seem to matter. It’s time America’s warmongering policymakers took a short trek down memory lane.

The list of botched US overseas missions is long, ignominious, and tragically for many, not memorable. It includes America’s bungled operation in Somalia in 1993, when a humanitarian intervention to referee a civil war Somalia is still fighting degenerated into urban combat, killing over a thousand Somalis, 18 US troops, and resulting in public embarrassment for the United States.

Our foolishness continued in the Balkans in the mid-nineties. Under the NATO umbrella US forces intervened in Bosnia to stop ethnic cleansing and build democracy. So we deployed peace keeping troops, bombed the Serbs, and tried Slobodan Milosevic for war crimes. Thanks to our efforts, Douglas Hague, the British Foreign Minister warns Bosnia is on the brink of relapsing into chaos and ethnic conflict.

Haiti makes the list too. Remember the mission to Haiti in 1994? “Operation Uphold Democracy” was just one of many US humanitarian missions to establish order in a country with no fire department. Again the results are similar, Haiti remains the same as it was before we intervened –backward, poverty stricken, and systemically corrupt.

For the moment, however, US interventions are focused on the Middle East, a region rapidly succumbing to Islamist rule aided in some measure by US air power, armaments, and no fly zones. Here too, America’s abysmal record hasn’t deterred us. US occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan set the bar high in terms of wasting US blood and treasure, inciting hatred against America, and leaving countries in worse shape than we found them.

After occupying Afghanistan for over a decade, the US is so unpopular amongst the local population that aid packages are stripped of any US markings to ensure Afghans will actually accept them. US military advisors training the Afghan army are constantly on alert, fearing that the people they are training may instantly turn and kill them. Just a few months ago US forces came under attack across the country and angry mobs gathered in Afghanistan’s capital, Kabul, to vent their rage after US troops burned already defiled copies of the Quran.

The US debacle in Iraq is only just now beginning to materialize. After installing a “democratic” government in Baghdad, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki thanked us for our efforts and said goodbye, rejecting the Obama Administration’s request to permanently station several thousand US troops in the country. With US forces completely out of the picture, Maliki and the Shia population he represents have consolidated control of the government, making Iraq ripe for civil war and extending the Iranian sphere of influence at the same time.

Fortunately, since the Arab Spring began last year the US has refined its involvement in mid-east affairs, now focusing on replacing secular authoritarian regimes with Islamist ones. Let’s recount some recent events.

First, it was Egyptian President Mubarak who had to go – so we sided with the protesters in Tahrir Square and encouraged democratic elections, putting the Muslim Brotherhood in charge. Next came Libya, but this required more direct action. Leading an international coalition, US air power set up a no fly zone and bombed Muammar Gaddafi’s forces into submission. Victory was secured when rebel forces reclaimed the capital Tripoli, killed Gaddafi, and declared Libya an Islamic state governed by Sharia Law.

Now US attentions are fixed on Syria. The interventionist drum beat began months ago when the usual bi-partisan coalition of the willing to bomb anyone, anywhere, anytime, for any reason, consisting of Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Joe Lieberman, called for direct US involvement.

McCain said that assuming Assad would ultimately be overthrown is a “convenient way to abdicate responsibility.” Responsibility to do what exactly? McCain’s answer – launch air strikes or arm the rebel opposition. Of course, who the opposition is and what US forces would achieve by intervening on their behalf are questions that go unanswered, but these are trivialities that don’t concern McCain’s triumvirate.

This brings us to the most important question –after all of these ruinous interventions under our belt and no sign we are letting up what is the end game? When will the interventions to no-where stop? Will interventionist supporters be content when the Middle East is dominated by democratically elected anti-Western Islamist governments? Will they rejoice when Assad’s regime is ousted, an outcome that will almost certainly plunge Syria into a full blown sectarian civil war?

Or will sober minded Americans remember that America is a republic not an empire, and compel Washington to invest in America, a country fast resembling the failed states we are desperately trying to fix?

Cameron Macgregor is a former naval officer and USNA graduate. He is writing his first book, America Resurrected.


The House voted today to reject a bill that would have banned sex-selection abortions (gendercide). The bill called Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA), was defeated 246-178. With 414 members voting the measure fell short by 30 votes. Twenty Democrats broke from their party to vote with the majority of Republicans. Seven GOPers opposed the measure.

Unwanted pregnancy can be very difficult to deal with both emotionally and financially, but terminating a pregnancy on the basis of the sex of the fetus is unimaginable and despicable. The killing of baby girls occurs in China and India, but not the United States or does it? Below is a video of a Planned Parenthood counselor assisting a woman with gendercide.

You watch and you decide.

Green Death

Eight regions of Spain have had their credit ratings cut as uneasy Spaniards moved their money overseas. Spooked by the questionable state of their banks, Spanish savers are now moving their money abroad faster than records have ever shown. Spain’s credit rating has been downgraded two notches and nearly 25% of Spaniards are unemployed

The Spanish newspaper La Gaceta ran a full-page article exposing the truth about Spain’s “green jobs” agenda, which just happens to have been cited many times by barack obama as the way “forward” for the United States. “Green energy” has now been exposed as a costly disaster that has undone Spain’s economy.

The Spanish Administration confessed “the increase of the electric bill is principally due to the cost of renewable energies.” It has now become officially recognized that the price of electricity, as well as increases in Spain’s debt are due to the extra cost of solar and wind energy. Additionally, the Spanish administration now admits that each green job that was created cost more than 2.2 traditional jobs in the private sector.

All evidence to the contrary, the obama administration insists on moving full speed ahead with its ill imagined, full frontal assault on the American energy industry, coupled with increased promotion of their “green jobs” fantasy.

Not only is coal America’s cheapest source of energy, the United States owns some the world’s largest coal deposits. Newly enacted EPA regulations now force a reduction in utility CO2 emissions to 1,000 pounds per megawatt of electricity. This regulation effectively bans construction of new coal-fired plants and will invariably lead to hikes in electricity costs. Since only natural gas meets the new emissions standard, the country’s electricity providers will be forced to pay the cost of converting to natural gas. One way or another, electricity prices will “necessarily skyrocket”.

Despite administration claims, obama’s hostility towards fossil fuels has led to reduced opportunities for domestic oil production. obama continues to call for the elimination of targeted tax breaks oil companies have been receiving for decades. The general public is largely unaware of the fact that those tax breaks are targeted chiefly for exploratory activities. Drilling for oil is an expensive, uncertain business venture. Even successful fields have limited lifespans. Besides, hiking taxes on new exploration is counter-intuitive to increasing production.

In addition to his open aggression towards traditional fuels, obama plans on “investing” more of American taxpayer money by doubling down on spending for wind farms, solar energy, homegrown biofuels and energy-efficient cars and buildings. The history of the administration’s “investment” strategy is fraught with peril.

Here are a few of the “green” “sustainable energy” failures that have already been supported by the current administration’s “investments”. Remember, all this financing was done using your tax dollars. Well, not exactly. It has been done with tax dollars to be re-paid to the Federal Reserve Bank and China by your grandchildren and great grandchildren. Plus interest:

Evergreen Energy-Which has filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, saying it’s “impossible to maintain operations” due to funding shortfalls. This announcement came after the company received $5.3 million in “stimulus” funds.

Amonix Inc.-A manufacturer of solar panels that received $5.9 million from the “stimulus”, laid off about 200 employees only seven months after opening a factory in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s home State of Nevada.

Beacon Power Corp-Sought bankruptcy protection in 2010 after they received a $43 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy.

Ener1 Electric-A car battery manufacturer, filed for bankruptcy three years after receiving a $118.5 million grant from the U.S. government.

These are all in addition to Solyndra-A solar panel maker that received a $535 million loan guarantee, then famously filed for Chapter 11 protection.

This is a mere taste of problems found when centrally planned big government intrudes into the free market. Not only is the spending inherently wasteful, the fact that these companies were in large part operated by big donors to obama’s political campaign points to the corruption involved when an ideologically captive, politically driven politician makes investment decisions based on cronyism. Two thirds of all energy loan guarantees or grants made by the obama administration’s Department of Energy have gone to his campaign donors or donation bundlers. Can you say quid quo pro?

All government energy subsidies should end. Energy companies should be free to compete without government interference. If and when “green” “sustainable energy” becomes a competitive solution, consumers will reward “green” companies that used private capital to successfully situate themselves in the market by purchasing their products. That’s how a free market works. That’s what’s made America the greatest economic success in the history of human civilization.

House of Representatives Fails to Pass Bill Banning Sex-Selective Abortion

This afternoon, the House of Representatives failed to pass a bill that would make sex-selective abortions a federal crime. This vote comes shortly after pro-life group Live Action released two undercover videos showing Planned Parenthood workers encouraging sex-selective abortions.

The bill, sponsored by Representative Trent Franks R-Ariz., would have made aborting a baby based on its sex or coercing a woman into an abortion based on the baby’s gender a federal crime punishable by up to 5 years in prison. Bringing a woman into the United States for the purpose of a sex-selective abortion also would be a crime punishable by up to five years in prison. The bill would not have punished the woman seeking the abortion.

246 representatives voted for the bill and 168 voted against, but the bill needed a two-thirds majority to pass and fell short by 30 votes.

Republican supporters of the bill argue that there is clear evidence in the US of women aborting their baby due to its female gender, especially amongst women who come from cultures where having a male is preferable. This practice is well known in countries such as India and China, although sex-selective abortions have been banned due to the imbalance in the gender ratio it causes. In the wake of Live Action’s video showing employees telling customers how to get a sex-selective abortion, US abortion giant, Planned Parenthood, has refused to ban the practice of sex-selective abortions.

Democrats opposed the bill because they say the evidence of sex-selective abortions is limited. They also voiced fears that doctors would be policing their patients. Earlier, White House spokesperson Jay Carney spoke about the sex-selective abortion debate, stating that President Obama did not support a ban because he believes the vote to be purely ideological. Carney also expressed the president’s reluctance to insert federal law into private and personal decisions.

Republican legislators have noted that this fight comes in the middle of Democratic claims of the so-called Republican war on women, yet given the opportunity to protect unborn women, Democrats have refused to do so.

5% Growth and 5% Unemployment!

The American entrepreneur is extremely resilient. This is evidenced by even a paltry 1.9% growth rate in the face of staggering regulation, looming health insurance burdens, and uncertain taxes.

The one thing business needs to thrive is certainty. That is the thing above all others that they have lacked from the current administration. Business will find a way to grow and profit in any environment so long as the environment is stable.

Business people need to be able to plan in five and ten year terms. If a businessman presents themselves for a business loan at a lending institution, the first thing the institution wants to see is a five year business plan. You would think the administration would understand that since that is what the government’s small business administration website advises, but no.

This administration, through its regulators and legislation changes the business landscape on an almost daily basis. The health care law is hideous. Dodd-Frank is just as bad, yet in spite of this daily turmoil our producers and providers have still managed to eek out some meager growth.

To fix the problem is really fairly simple. Government get out of the way. Stop helping! No more helping! It was helping people who could not afford to buy a house buy houses that got us into this mess to begin with. It was helping commercial banks get into the investment banking business that got us into this mess. Helping doesn’t help.

This country was founded on people helping themselves and their own neighbors, not on government help. Every time the government helps, it makes those whom it is trying to help worse off.

Fixing the economy in five simple steps:

1. Repeal Obamacare
2. Repeal Dodd-Frank
3. Reinstate Glass-Steagall
4. Pass the Mack-Penny budget plan
5. Go to a flat 20% income tax with only mortgage, charitable and health savings account deductions.

Then do nothing else. America will fix its own economy if given half a chance.

I’m just sayin’

Unaccountable Delegation Leads to Disaster

We have become a society of delegation with no accountability. We delegate that which is our responsibility and that delegation then turns into replacement. Let me explain what I mean. Delegation has its place. Good leaders delegate responsibilities and tasks to workers under their authority. Delegation gives a boss the freedom to focus on other things. Delegation can be effective, but delegation without accountability can be disastrous. Plus, some things cannot nor should not be delegated.

The structure of our government depends on representative delegation, which ensures we remain a republic and not become a pure democracy. In other words, we elect representatives and trust them to express the mind of the people when making laws to live under. We the people delegate this work to Congress, but we seldom hold our representatives accountable. Representatives are supposed to vote the mind of their constituents, but when they vote contrary to the will of the people, and the voters do not hold them accountable, this delegation becomes a signed blank check.

But some things can’t be delegated. In certain areas, responsibilities should not be passed down to others.
As a whole we have delegated, even relegated certain responsibilities which has resulted in disaster for the family, church, society and the nation. Notice, some of the delegations below:

(1) Mothers have delegated nurturing, substituting “mothercare” with daycare.

(2) Parents have delegated their children’s education to institutions (public and private) by not teaching their children at home first, if not completely, through home education. Even parents who send their children to institutions for education are still responsible to provide sound instruction first in the home, as the foundation for all education. This includes academic and moral instruction. For most children today, all instruction is done outside the home. When instruction is done outside the home, parents are to hold those institutions accountable for what they do or do not teach, and are responsible to ensure the education is quality.

(3) We have delegated all spiritual and moral instruction to the church, but this responsibility belongs primarily to the parents. Church is essential, but spiritual and moral instruction from the local church supplements and validates instruction from the home.

Through passage of time, delegation becomes relegation (abandonment), which then turns into abdication (resignation, relinquishment of power). This natural course then leads to replacement. Is it any wonder then, that society has turned upside down over the past 50 years and black has become white and white has become black? The Old Testament prophet said, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!” Isaiah 5:20, 21. Notice the replacement that has resulted in many areas:
We have replaced this Republic with a Democracy.
We have replaced the Constitution with the Supreme Court.
We have replaced God with government.
We have replaced civil rights with discriminating quotas.
We have replaced the right to life for the innocent with the right of the woman to choose death.
We have replaced empirical science with a theory called evolution.
We have replaced education with schooling.
We have replaced love with sex.
We have replaced abstinence with safe sex.
We have replaced that which is normal (heterosexuality) with abnormal perversion (homosexuality).
We have replaced salvation with church membership.
We have replaced absolutes with relativism.
We have replaced common sense with irrational thinking.
We have replaced peace with pacifism.
We have replaced benevolence with welfare.
We have replaced our diverse heritage with multiculturalism.
We have replaced the authorized version of scripture with a myriad of incomplete, inferior versions.

May God open our eyes and bolster us with the courage to replace the replacements with that which we already know to be the tried-and-true foundation. Contrary to popular opinion, seeking the old paths is not bad.

Joseph Harris, [email protected] has been a college professor and pastor since 1987 and his writings have appeared on, WND, Sword of the Lord, Intellectual Conservative, Conservative Daily News, Canada Free Press, Land of the Free, The Post Chronicle and News America Daily.

Conservative CAPE PAC Pledges Continued Support for Ted Cruz in Texas Republican Runoff

Conservative Group Supports Cruz in the GOP Senate Primary

Wikipedia Image

WASHINGTON, May 30, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — With 62 days left until the Republican Senate runoff race in Texas, the Coalition of Americans for Political Equality PAC (CAPE PAC) will continue its educational and GOTV campaign for state Solicitor General Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz in his bid against Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst, it was announced today.

Emerging from a field of nine Republican candidates, Tuesday’s primary results indicate growing momentum for Ted Cruz, since David Dewhurst – the establishment candidate – fell short of breaking the 50 percent margin of votes needed to avoid a runoff.

CAPE PAC Chairman Jeff Loyd said, “It’s critical that we do all that we can to win a majority in the U.S. Senate with conservative leaders like Ted Cruz. This runoff is the next big step on the road to victory in November.”

Loyd noted that there were only 145k votes separating Cruz & Dewhurst. More telling was that less than 1.4MM total votes were cast for the Texas Republican Senate race, which is far short of the more than 10MM Texans registered as Republicans and it was an open primary.

CAPE PAC launched a digitally focused push to get out the vote for Cruz in his successful drive to force a runoff against Dewhurst, focusing the conversation around the hash tag #VOTECRUZ which has begun to trend on Twitter. One of the many facets to CAPE’s digital campaign was a targeted online video viewed by more than 30,000 Texans in the days leading up to the primary. You can watch the video here: or visit the CAPE PAC candidate support site for Ted Cruz at

Over the course of the next 60+ days leading up to the runoff vote on July 31st, CAPE PAC will be engaging in a wide range of voter contact activities to get out the vote for Cruz including launching a massive call campaign targeting more than 3 million registered Republicans and Independents in Texas. They are focused on driving a large search, social, online video, and email campaign focused on why Cruz should be elected over Dewhurst. They will also be utilizing digital remarketing and other new media advertising techniques to find Texans online with interest in the campaign in an effort to help sway votes for Cruz. As part of this rollout, CAPE PAC is launching an all-out push on television nationwide to drive interest in Cruz to help him prevail against Dewhurst. Loyd was clear that their goal was simply to, “get as many registered Republican voters out to the polls as possible in support of Cruz on July 31st.”

The Coalition of Americans for Political Equality has built on its experience in Indiana and Nebraska with similar get out the vote activities in preparation for the runoff in July. CAPE PAC proved to be an influence in the victory of Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock in defeating six-term incumbent Dick Lugar in the U.S. Senate Republican primary. The organization also conducted a voter outreach campaign in Nebraska to target 90,000 registered Republicans to get out the vote for the G.O.P. primary race.

CAPE PAC’s Chairman Jeff Loyd said: “After our campaign experience from Indiana, Nebraska, and this first round in Texas, we feel the most important thing we can do is to reach out by phone and help inform as many registered Republicans as possible about Cruz and do all that we can to get out the vote for him.”

Loyd said Texans now have a “clear choice between a true conservative – Ted Cruz – versus a moderate Republican who would likely continue destructive state policies [Dewhurst].”

Cruz is the first Hispanic Solicitor General in Texas, serving from 2003-08 and representing Texas before the U.S. Supreme Court and all state and federal appellate courts. He was also the youngest Solicitor General in the United States and also longest serving Solicitor General in Texas history.  He has authored over 80 U.S. Supreme Court briefs and personally argued 40 oral arguments, including 9 before the Supreme Court. As Solicitor General, Cruz had numerous victories for Texas including defending the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, the constitutionality of the Texas Ten Commandments monument, the constitutionality of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, and others.

“We know what a great leader Cruz has been for the state of Texas and what an advocate he has been for the U.S. Constitution. We want to see more of that kind of leadership in Washington,” Loyd said.

The Coalition of Americans for Political Equality Political Action Committee (CAPE PAC) is a non-profit political organization dedicated to restoring conservative values in the politicians elected to represent all citizens of the United States of America. Through the utilization of tools in the CAPE PAC advocacy center, our goal is to assist an informed and active citizenry in their drive for change in the political landscape this November and beyond.

A World Without Private Property

Socialism can be most succinctly defined as a world without private property. Private property is seen by socialists as a barrier between human beings that keeps people from cooperating with one another, and that feeds their selfishness and egotism. In the reductivist socialist worldview, all phenomena of the world, including human behavior, can be extrapolated from material conditions. In a world of perfect material equality, so socialist thinking goes, there would be peace and harmony among men.

Yet there is a fatal flaw in this worldview. The desire of the individual for self-expression manifests itself in the need for property as an extension of self; either in terms of the reification (or realization) of a person’s labor, which is the concrete encapsulation of creativity, time, and a human being’s very life; or in terms of a person’s desire for security from the mob or the state.

To deny private property, in a sense, is to obliterate the word “mine,” from the lexicon of humanity; not to be replaced by the word “ours,” the superficial antithesis of “mine”; but rather both terms are stricken from man’s vocabulary because his conceptualization of property is erased through the removal of the referents, replaced by a state of non-comprehension of the nature of the self and the limits of material reality. The self does not develop through the process of a man interacting with his environment; in fact, the sacramentalization of the environment implies the destruction of individualization.

The removal of property from the private sphere and displacement into the public arena or into the growing abyss of “the environment” (a step further removed in the direction of the state’s absolute control of natural resources) is the underlying cause of the ancient (i.e. non-Marxist) version of the “tragedy of the commons.” The phenomenon of the deterioration of “public goods” was later refined by Luis Molina of The School of Salamanca, who noted that individuals care for their own property better than that of property held in common. The tragedy of the commons can be seen in any inner city ghetto, which is non-coincidentally, any place that modern liberals have prolonged power.

This examination of the insidious effects of the obliteration of private property can be further informed by deconstruction of Pierre Joseph Proudhon‘s famous maxim in What is Property? (1840) of “Property is theft.” But in a world without property rights, there can be no theft. There is no moral-legal structure of economic order, there is only a world with no legal barriers to prevent victimization, not only by other human beings, but by the state itself. But wouldn’t this be an exact reversal of the Enlightenment project, which began with Thomas HobbesLeviathan and was developed into its mature form in the philosophy of John Locke?

There may be those who intuitively disagree with this narrative, and believe that I am constructing a straw man; that no modern liberal is so radical as to support the obliteration of private property, and that what is really proponed by the Democrats in power is a “mixed economy”; that is, a combination of the best parts of capitalism and socialism, experimented with until the best of both worlds is constructed.

But this point of view belies an ignorance or disingenuous exposition of the real-world implementation of the philosophy of Marx. The method of socialist corruption of the economy is “dialectical materialism,” which means that, following Fichte and informally Marx’s teacher Hegel, “the development of the thesis into the antithesis, which is sublated by the synthesis.” What does this mean essentially? It means from a Hegelian point of view that history is a process of change and transformation, which may be practically adapted, in the Marxist-Leninist and the neomarxist point of view, as the destruction of the capitalist system through the introduction of elements of its antithesis.

If the American people take for granted that the hallmark of “capitalism,” a term coined by Marx, is simply the presence of capital, or currency, then this leaves the state free to corrupt other elements of the economy. The master stroke for the socialists was John Maynard Keynes‘ development of a “general theory” of economics, that supported the incremental erosion of the purchasing power of the currency through inflation. Here is the secret engine of destruction at the heart of the  “Fabian socialist” strategy, as John Maynard Keynes alludes to in an essay:

“Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the capitalist system was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security but [also] at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth. […]

Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.”

Thus we see the hidden motive of Keynesianism: To debauch the currency and to bring chaos and disorder to the economic system of “capitalism”; while a new order is created and oriented towards statist ends. And one can ask any government bureaucrat, Keynes is almost universally revered in the government and in the civil service. The difference between the Bolshevik and the Fabian Socialist is a matter of speed, not ends.

So how can the Democrats, and even some Republicans, get away with disguising their statist agenda, which is cloaked either in social welfare or military Keynesianism, respectively? Statist politicians are given cover in the American political system two ways. First of all, the legislative branch is founded on deliberation and compromise. This means that the foundation of the capitalist economy, individual rights and private property, can be compromised away by the two parties through the dialectics of discourse. This is the reason that we Americans constantly hear about “bipartisanship” and “democracy,” but only if it fits the statist agenda.

Second, being that the foundation of America is assumed to be “capitalist,” the ghosts of the free market system that are the dollar bills we hold in our hands persist long after the market system has been incrementally and systematically corrupted through the institution of fiat currency. One might even say that our Hegelian historical moment of truth has passed, and that the logical implication of the establishment of fiat currency is that we work at the behest of the state, our labor given in debt to the labor of others. Philosophically, this is the destruction of individual rights through the undermining of private property, which is measured in a “capitalist” system in capital. If the state owns the capital that we exchange, then we are effectively at the mercy of the state. Taxes are not the confiscation of property, but the state’s collection of notes of legal tender that it dispersed at an earlier point in time for the benefit of the “public good.”

If we can imagine for a moment, with our radical compatriots, what a world without private property would look like, one where unlimited democracy reigns, and one where the means of production are at the disposal of the proletariat, what would this world look like? Hypothetically, say that one wanted a new vehicle for the transport of one’s family to visit a relative, would the collective see the need to manufacture a vehicle, simply because one desired to visit a family member? Or more to the fancy of collectivists’ presuppositions, what if the commune’s vehicle was being used by someone else, and it was a family emergency for one of the group’s members? That person is simply out of luck, and possibly brandished as selfish if he makes demands on the commune for the use of a public resource.

It gets much worse if we explore the assumption of a world without private property further. Inevitably, demands on public resources skyrocket, the government is forced to ration goods and services, including the provision of healthcare, and social entropy ensues. People become morally corrupted, and tend to engage in selfish behavior such as pilfering public resources for oneself, which can hardly be considered stealing given the collectivists’ own supposed “philosophy.”

But the proposition of a world without private property is not something that has been contemplated fully by the radical left, as I know from experience debating its members. The culmination of the destruction of the capitalist system results not in utopia but in the “Then what?” question. On the contrary, the founding fathers fully contemplated a world without private property, drawing on the works of men like Aristotle, and informed by the testimony of its disaster by men like William Bradford. Such true philosophical and rational exploration of the issue led John Adams to conclude:

“Property is surely a right of mankind as really as liberty. Perhaps, at first, prejudice, habit, shame or fear, principle or religion, would restrain the poor from attacking the rich, and the idle from usurping on the industrious; but the time would not be long before courage and enterprise would come, and pretexts be invented by degrees, to countenance the majority in dividing all the property among them, or at least, in sharing it equally with its present possessors. Debts would be abolished first; taxes laid heavy on the rich, and not at all on the others; and at last a downright equal division of every thing be demanded, and voted. What would be the consequence of this? The idle, the vicious, the intemperate, would rush into the utmost extravagance of debauchery, sell and spend all their share, and then demand a new division of those who purchased from them. The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”

And are not anarchy and tyranny commencing?

When private property is abolished, or debauched, or otherwise controlled by the state, whether the regime is supposedly “democratic” or not, men are not liberated, but rather, men become the captives of others.  Society thus becomes animated by coercion borne of boundless entitlement. 

And is this not the definition of slavery?

NYC’s Food Nazis Have Found Their Latest Victim

If Mayor Bloomberg gets his way, New Yorkers might not be allowed to Super Size their drinks the next time they buy a soda.

NEW YORK (AP) — New York City plans to ban the sale of large sodas and other sugary drinks in an effort to combat obesity.

The proposed first-in-the-nation ban would impose a 16-ounce limit on the size of sweetened drinks sold at restaurants, movie theaters, sports venues and street carts. It would apply to bottled drinks as well as fountain sodas.

The ban, which could take effect as soon as March, would not apply to diet sodas, fruit juices, dairy-based drinks or alcoholic beverages. Nor would it include drinks sold in grocery or convenience stores. Food establishments that don’t downsize would face fines of $200.

The article goes on to say that Bloomberg has tried to attack soda twice before, but was shut down once by the state of New York and once by the Federal government.  Ouch.  This time, however, it looks like the mayor has the power to see this through.  It’s going to be interesting to see how tourists feel the next time they want to wash down a bite of the Big Apple.

The RNC’s Latest “Solyndra” Ad

This latest ad from the RNC treads familiar ground in calling President Obama out for the government backed loan guarantees that Solyndra received, but it does try to push a new angle.  It goes out of its way to suggest to viewers that Solyndra was an avoidable folly and one that had many red flags.  While some might say this exemplifies the President’s bad business sense or even a lack of leadership skills in general, this could also point toward the fact that he was going to reward his friends with tax payer money, whether the boondoggle would prove fruitful or not.

How effective do you think this ad will be?  So far, does Romney seems like a better or worse campaigner than you were expecting?

Birther Nonsense

While I’m not a fan of Stand Up! with Pete Dominick on Sirius XM, he’s always good to get the center-left angle on politics.  In addition, I’m a self-diagnosed politics junkie who was stuck in the wonderful Beltway traffic so I guess you can say I didn’t have a choice in the matter.  Pete’s guest, John Avalon, made a critical point today stating how significant Mitt Romney’s nomination really is to American politics.  He is the first Mormon to be nominated by a major party and the first non-protestant to be nominated by Republicans.  This comes after Mitt’s pervasive hammering surrounding his not so stellar conservative credentials.  The base may have been skeptical about him, but in the end, they choose him over the other clowns who vied for the Republican nomination. However, the mainstream media is not pushing that narrative.  Instead, they’re focused on Donald Trump’s birther nonsense.

Now, I know we should all focus on the economy and other key issues in this upcoming election, but this birther issue does get under my skin.  First of all, it’s beyond absurd.   Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and is a “natural born citizen” who is eligible for the presidency.  Even Andrew Breitbart thought this whole charade was a losing issue.  No one cares! No one cares because the narrative these people are trying to push is not grounded in reality.  It is something akin to an Alex Jones “theory”, who feels that al-Qaeda is an arm of the U.S. intelligence network, or a person who has watched Three Days of the Condor, The Manchurian Candidate, and The Parallax View one too many times.  No doubt shady stuff occurs in Washington, but birthers are so ludicrous it makes me want to hug them in empathy.

My first taste in blogging was for Western Journalism, which reports heavily on the subject.  I cannot bash the folks at Western Journalism too much, since some of them are very professional and cordial, but as the months progressed; I found myself unable to be associated with an organization that peddles, excuse me, this gross propaganda concerning Obama’s eligibility.  It’s been three years folks.  If you haven’t been able to convince the base, the heavyweights in the conservative media, and the American people, you probably don’t have the “explosive find” which you regard as the holy grail of political malfeasance.

Furthermore, like liberals, birthers get agitated, petulant, and downright nasty when people dismiss them and their ideas.  It is a temper tantrum on steroids. An excerpt from a piece on Western Journalism detailed the open letter Breitbart’s Senior Staff released surrounding their legitimate vetting of Obama which, needless to say, didn’t bode well with this writer.

Andrew Breitbart was never a ‘Birther,’ and Breitbart News is a site that has never advocated the narrative of ‘Birtherism.’”

Reading this makes me want to ask in bemused wonder:  How old are you?  (I could, of course, ask the same question of Anderson Cooper, Bill O’Reilly, Mark Levine, Neal Boortz, or Glenn Beck – who are clearly much older to a man.)  But seriously, how immature – or insecure, at least – must one be to be so concerned with what the cultural elites think of them?  Young Ben Shapiro (twenty-eight, and reportedly the youngest nationally syndicated writer in the country) went to Harvard Law. One wonders if he had been president of the Law Review if we would have ever seen one of his publications…but I digress.  Joel Pollak…sure enough, went to both Harvard and Harvard Law – just as I had expected.

While I must congratulate the two on emerging from that milieu with any non-collectivist values, it seems that neither of them escaped with a penchant for identifying and confronting the Alinsky staple of marginalization…or, they accept the practice so fully that they simply can’t bear the thought of being on the receiving end thereof.  Well, grow up, boys!  If what Media Matters says about you is a concern (and it clearly is), then perhaps you should choose another line of work.

I think someone misplaced their pacifier.

The real comical element about this whole movement is that there is no concrete legal definition of the term “natural born citizen.”  They have no cornerstone.  I’ve always thought that the term applied to any citizens born on American soil.  Indeed, I would stand corrected. Byron York wrote a great piece in The Washington Examiner since the rude resurrection of this issue thanks to Donald Trump, who Geogre Will aptly called a bloviated ignoramus last Sunday.  York wrote:

The Constitution specifies that a president must be a “natural born citizen” of the United States, but it does not define the term. The Supreme Court has never clarified the issue, but there is a law, 8 U.S. Code 1401, that spells out in detail who is a citizen.

The law uses the phrase “citizens of the United States at birth” and lists categories of people who fit that description.

First, there are people born inside the United States. No question about that; their citizenship is established by the 14th Amendment.

Then there are the people who are born outside the United States to parents who are both American citizens, provided one of them has lived in the U.S. for any period of time. And then there are the people who are born outside the United States to one parent who is a U.S. citizen and the other who is an alien, provided the citizen parent lived in the United States or its possessions for at least five years, at least two of them after age 14.

Since they are all “citizens of the United States at birth,” the question is, does that also mean they are “natural born citizens” in the constitutional sense?

Birthers believe a natural born citizen is a person born to two parents who were citizens of the United States at the time.  Hence, the reason why birthers have Marco Rubio, the crown prince of the Tea Party movement, in their crosshairs if he should ever be chosen as Romney’s running mate.

Well, according to Theodore Olson, Bush’s former solicitor general:

“My conclusion would be that if you are a citizen as a consequence of your birth, that’s a natural-born citizen…[Olsen] defended John McCain in a 2008 lawsuit alleging McCain was ineligible to be president. McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 while his father served in the U.S. Navy there. Even though the area was under American jurisdiction and both McCain’s parents were U.S. citizens, some Democrats alleged McCain was ineligible to be president. McCain won the case, if not the presidency.

The law is really quite lenient, especially for those born outside the United States. If a child were born today in, say, Kenya, to a Kenyan father and an American citizen mother who had lived in the United States for at least five years, at least two of them over the age of 14 — that child would be a “citizen of the United States by birth” and be eligible for the White House.

However, this hasn’t stopped people like Joseph Farah of World Net Daily, who vociferously pushes the birther issue and has gone on record to say Rubio is ineligible for the VP slot due to his parents not being citizens at the time.  Washington lawyer Matthew McGill, who York cites in his column, states  “I am not aware of anyone who has contended that someone could be born in the United States and be a citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment and nevertheless still not be a natural-born American citizen…if he is born in the United States, his parentage is not of consequence.”  No to mention that there is incontrovertible proof that Rubio was born in Miami, Florida.

In the words of John Adams, “facts are stubborn things.” Barack Obama is eligible for president, he is the president, and now we must focus all of our efforts in voting him out of office come November.  We have no time to theorize absurd notions about the “origins of his birth.”  This is time to get serious about the fate of our republic and our economy and we have zero time for sophomoric conspiracy theories whose footnote page is no longer than a kindergartner’s book report.  However, this is a free country.  You have every right to keep your opinions, no matter how insane, but I intend, along with other serious conservatives, to do everything possible in order to restore honor and dignity to the White House.  It’s game time and birthers have come unprepared.  They’re still coming down from their Paxil binge.

Two Paths

The Late Andrew Breitbart

The future of our republic is at stake and we have a serious decision to make this November. We are facing the most vicious political team ever.  However, when you watch this great video from Ben Howe, it should prepare you for the coming fight.

« Older Entries