Tuesday, February 9, 2010
GARY JOHNSON'S OUR AMERICA (CONDENSED VERSION)
The Obama Budget and the Horse You Rode In On
From the AP I read the astonishing item that “In a face-to-face encounter, President Barack Obama chastised Republican lawmakers Friday for opposing him on health care, economic stimulus and other major issues.” Hahahaha! This is too rich! Hahaha!
Composing myself for just a moment and taking a quick look to see if my zipper is up, I stand up and say, “Let me be the first to tell that arrogant commie bastard that Republican lawmakers are not the only ones opposing his arrogant, insane fiscal monstrosities, and I will be the first to say that I have nothing but Utter Mogambo Contempt (UMC) for anyone who is NOT opposed to such lunacies that are, already, budgeted to spend $3.8 trillion in the fiscal year when the Whole Freaking Economy (WFE) is only $14 trillion, and out of that, the Congressional monsters plan to deficit-spend $1.6 trillion in the year, which is So Much Money (SMM) that if your brain has not exploded at the sheer inflationary horror of increasing the money supply by $1.6 trillion in one year, then say “goodbye” to the last of your brain cells when I tell you that this whopping, gargantuan, insane $1.6 trillion of deficit spending is only the beginning!
I know, from long experience, that many of you ask, like this recent one from mom, “Do you know that you are the worst? Your writing stinks, your economics stink, I hate you and everything you do, and one can only wonder how it could get worse!” which leads me to the conclusion that many of you will write and ask, “How could it get worse than $1.6 trillion of deficit-spending, which means at least $1.6 trillion in new money created by the Federal Reserve, so that the federal government can spend $3.8 trillion, which is so much money that it is 27% of the whole freaking economy?”
Read More at Lew Rockwell
Scientific Misconduct: The Manipulation of Evidence for Political Advocacy in Health Care and Climate Policy
Science is increasingly being manipulated by those who try to use it to justify political choices based on their ethical preferences and who are willing to suppress evidence of conflict between those preferences and the underlying reality. This problem is clearly seen in two policy domains, health care and climate policy.
In the area of climate policy, recent revelations of e-mails from the government-sponsored Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia reveal a pattern of data suppression, manipulation of results, and efforts to intimidate journal editors to suppress contradictory studies that indicate that scientific misconduct has been used intentionally to manipulate a social consensus to support the researchers' advocacy of addressing a problem that may or may not exist.
In health care policy, critics have long worried about the inordinate influence of pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers on research to show the safety and viability of new products. Recent information, however, shows that government agencies may cause more problems in this area — a worrisome development considering that health care legislation recently passed by the United States Senate would allow federal agencies to punish organizations whose researchers publish results that conflict with what the agency feels is appropriate.
That bill allows the withholding of funding to an institution where a researcher publishes findings not "within the bounds of and entirely consistent with the evidence," a vague authorization that creates a tremendous tool that can be used to ensure self-censorship and conformity with bureaucratic preferences. As AcademyHealth notes, "Such language to restrict scientific freedom is unprecedented and likely unconstitutional."
How Many More Are Innocent?
America's 250th DNA exoneration raises questions about how often we send the wrong person to prison.
Radley BalkoFreddie Peacock of Rochester, New York, was convicted of rape in 1976. Last week he became the 250th person to be exonerated by DNA testing since 1989. According to a new report by the Innocence Project, those 250 prisoners served 3,160 years between them; 17 spent time on death row. Remarkably, 67 percent of them were convicted after 2000—a decade after the onset of modern DNA testing. The glaring question here is, How many more are there?
Calculating the percentage of innocents now in prison is a tricky and controversial process. The numerator itself is difficult enough to figure out. The certainty of DNA testing means we can be positive the 250 cases listed in the Innocence Project report didn't commit the crimes for which they were convicted, and that number also continues to rise. But there are hundreds of other cases in which convictions have been overturned due to a lack of evidence, recantation of eyewitness testimony, or police or prosecutorial misconduct, but for which there was no DNA evidence to establish definitive guilt or innocence. Those were wrongful convictions in that there wasn't sufficient evidence to establish reasonable doubt, but we can't be sure all the accused were factually innocent.
Most prosecutors fight requests for post-conviction DNA testing. That means the discovery of wrongful convictions is limited by the time and resources available to the Innocence Project and similar legal aid organizations to fight for a test in court. It's notable that in one of the few jurisdictions where the district attorney is actively seeking out wrongful convictions—Dallas County, Texas—the county by itself has seen more exonerations than all but a handful of individual states. If prosecutors in other jurisdictions were to follow Dallas D.A. Craig Watkins' lead, that 250 figure would be significantly higher.
READ MORE REASON
Nullification: It’s Official
While speaking to a large crowd of over a thousand people on the campus of Arizona State University last December, Congressman Ron Paul mentioned one thing that might come about as the result of the federal government habitually ignoring the Constitution: Nullification.
About five minutes into the video segment which you'll find below, he said, "There's not much attention paid to the Constitution in Washington. There's not much attention paid to it by our executive branch of government. And we don't get much protection from our courts. So one thing that might finally happen from this if the people finally feel so frustrated that they can't get the results out of Washington – they're going to start thinking about options. They might start thinking about nullification and a few things like that."
As someone who attended that rally and was doing my best to represent my state's chapter of The Tenth Amendment Center, I know I cheered very loudly and was very pleased when the rest of the crowd applauded enthusiastically.
For anyone who is unfamiliar with the concept of state nullification, it was the idea expressed by then sitting vice president, Thomas Jefferson, when he authored what came to be called the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. The resolutions made the case that the federal government is a creature of the states and that states have the authority to judge the constitutionality of the federal government's laws and decrees. He also argued that states should refuse to enforce laws which they deemed unconstitutional.
James Madison wrote a similar resolution for Virginia that same year, in which he asserted that whenever the federal government exceeds its constitutional limits and begins to oppress the citizens of a state, that state's legislature is duty bound to interpose its power to prevent the federal government from victimizing its people. Very similar to Jefferson's concept of nullification, Madison's doctrine of interposition differed in some small but important ways. READ MORE
Monday, February 8, 2010
Dr. Davis' February 2010 Letter to the Editor
Recently a reporter called to inquire about my reaction to developments in the congressional campaign and he made a comment about “conservative libertarians.” While there may be such individuals, in general the term indicates a misunderstanding of both conservatives and libertarians.
My understanding of “conservative” indicates a desire to preserve and maintain the status quo. The status quo in government and the constitution that libertarians identify with was accepted as the norm from about 200 years ago to at least 120 years ago. Before that, from about 1765 to about 1800, it was clearly revolutionary.
From the “Progressive Era” beginning around 1890 to the present we have generally seen the expansion of the power of the federal government and its influence on the economy at many levels, as well as increasingly aggressive action in foreign affairs, all at increasing rates. This is not a status quo that libertarians accept, and, in fact, opposition to these things was in great measure responsible for the establishment of the Libertarian Party.
As a result, we have come full circle, to where the ideas of federal government limited and constrained by the Constitution, with a peaceful, neutral, noninterventionist foreign policy have again become what might be considered revolutionary.
It is with this in mind that I (and others) am running for Congress, with an aim to rolling back the expansion of the federal government in favor of more individual responsibility and self-government, less government in the economy, and noninterventionist foreign policy.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Davis, D.D.S.
Libertarian for Congress, First District
Mark Faber: Social Obligations Will Lead Western States to Default
The United States’ top credit rating is at risk, with its triple 'A' status warned it may be downgraded if the economy grows at a slower pace than expected, says ratings agency Moody's.
The US is predicted to have a $1.5 trillion deficit in 2010, which could be a real problem for the country’s seemingly insatiable appetite for borrowing. Outspoken investor and writer Marc Faber doesn’t give America much time before it goes bust.
“Maximum within 10 years time more than 35% of tax revenues will have to be used to pay the interest on the government debt and then you are in trouble – because then there will be not enough money out of the budget to pay for other stuff. I’m convinced the US government will go bankrupt, but not tomorrow. And before they go bankrupt, they’ll print money, and then you get high inflation rates, you have a depression and eventually they’ll go to war.”
Read More
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Sam Adams on a Sunday Afternoon
"The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule."
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Friday, February 5, 2010
Big Government's Cronies
The real reason politicians like complicated tax and regulatory schemes
Vice President Joe Biden appeared at the opening of one of its plants. CEO Kevin Surace thanked him for his "unwavering support." "Without you and the recovery ("stimulus") act, this would not have been possible," Surace said.
Biden returned the compliment: "You are not just churning out windows; you are making some of the most energy-efficient windows in the world. I would argue the most energy-efficient windows in the world."
Gee, other window-makers say their windows are just as energy efficient, but the vice president didn't visit them.
Biden laid it on pretty thick for Serious Materials: "This is a story of how a new economy predicated on innovation and efficiency is not only helping us today but inspiring a better tomorrow."
Serious doesn't just have the vice president in his corner. It's got President Obama himself.
Company board member Paul Holland had the rare of honor of introducing Obama at a "green energy" event. Obama then said: "Serious Materials just reopened ... a manufacturing plant outside of Pittsburgh. These workers will now have a new mission: producing some of the most energy-efficient windows in the world." READ MORE REASON
Tea Partiers Shouldn't Date the GOP
In recent months, the most influential political party in the country may not be the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, but the Tea Party. This murky, largely leaderless grassroots movement has been the driving force behind the derailment of President Barack Obama's dearest agenda items, notably health care reform and climate change legislation.
What are the goals of this movement? In part, that is the wrong question. The Tea Party effort rejects the notion that a politician or a pundit should define their movement. Rather, citizens themselves will tell us what the movement means.
As their name suggests, these citizens want to revive the ideas at the heart of the American Revolution: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. One chapter in Texas adopted these principles: limited government; fiscal responsibility; personal responsibility and the rule of law.
Tea Party groups are conducting online polling and deliberations to determine the priorities of the movement. This process will create a "Contract from America" to serve as a template for reforms to come. The most popular ideas now include a flat tax, congressional term limits and abolishing the U.S. Department of Education.
Those ideals and policies sound like what the Republican Party once espoused but have not practiced for at least a decade.
Not surprisingly, establishment conservatives have recently tried to make hay of the Tea Party movement's apparent lack of a recognizable face or national headquarters. Grover Norquist, the Rasputin behind countless conservative organizing activities, has offered tips to Tea Party organizers. Old (and perhaps new again) Republican apparatchiks like Dick Armey and Newt Gingrich have proclaimed their oneness with the Tea Party faithful and essentially offered their services as the movement's leaders. No doubt many Republican leaders would like to direct the energy of the Tea Party against the Obama administration and to receive the votes of these idealists come November.
We pray thee, Tea Partiers: Do not go there. READ MORE @ CATO
Are All Jobs Created (or Saved) Equal?
NASA shouldn't be a jobs program
And in Washington, D.C., an attack of the nerves generally manifests itself in howls of outrage at committee hearings. So on Tuesday, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) dove right in, with a thinly veiled threat: "When the president says that he's going to cancel Constellation, I can tell you that to muster the votes and to overcome that, it's going to be very, very difficult." While Nelson—and nearly everyone else quoted below—talked about the importance of the grand vision of space exploration, when they got down to brass tacks their concerns were about constituent jobs. About 7,000 space jobs in Florida are at stake in the revision of the NASA budget.
In the traditional howl-of-outrage committee meeting of the House Armed Forces Committee on Wednesday, Rep. Rob Bishop, (R-Utah) said "thousands of people in Utah…are losing good-paying, high-tech jobs. Many of the employees at [rocket manufacturer] ATK have been with the Minuteman program for 35 years or more and have unique experience and capability that will now be lost to our country." READ MORE REASON
Words to Live By.......
"The true danger is when Liberty is nibbled away, for expedients."
Thursday, February 4, 2010
The Truth
"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."
Words to Live By.......
"No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session."
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
The Truth
"If you have been voting for politicians who promise to give you goodies at someone else's expense, then you have no right to complain when they take your money and give it to someone else, including themselves. "
Surveillance Can't Make Us Secure
In a major speech on Internet freedom last week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged American tech companies to "take a proactive role in challenging foreign governments' demands for censorship and surveillance." Her call to action followed a series of dazzlingly sophisticated cyberattacks against online giant Google and more than thirty other major technology companies, believed to originate in the People's Republic of China. Few observers have found the Chinese government's staunch denials of involvement persuasive — but the attacks should also spur our own government to review the ways our burgeoning surveillance state has made us more vulnerable.
The Google hackers appear to have been interested in, among other things, gathering information about Chinese dissidents and human rights activists — and they evidently succeeded in obtaining account information and e-mail subject lines for a number of Gmail users. While Google is understandably reluctant to go into detail about the mechanics of the breach, a source at the company told ComputerWorld "they apparently were able to access a system used to help Google comply with [US] search warrants by providing data on Google users." In other words, a portal set up to help the American government catch criminals may have proved just as handy at helping the Chinese government find dissidents.
In a way, the hackers' strategy makes perfect sense. Communications networks are generally designed to restrict outside access to their users' private information. But the goal of government surveillance is to create a breach-by-design, a deliberate backdoor into otherwise carefully secured systems. The appeal to an intruder is obvious: Why waste time with retail hacking of many individual targets when you can break into the network itself and spy wholesale? READ MORE
Words to Live By.......
"One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."