Paul II Stands Up Against Foreign Aid

Texas Congressman Ron Paul correctly characterizes US foreign aid as "taking money from poor people in this country and giving it to rich people in poor countries." Paul's son, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, fought long and hard to restrict and, in some cases, end foreign aid through to a late-night vote last Friday night. 

Senator Paul addressed the Senate floor for about an hour with an impassioned argument against US foreign aid policy.

A valiant effort, Paul's Bill was eventually defeated by a vote of 81-9 (with 10 abstentions). 

Paul actually predicted the defeat of his own Bill in his speech saying, "the vast majority of the Senate is going to vote for unlimited, unrestricted foreign aid. I will probably lose this vote." Although Rand Paul personally objects to foreign aid, his Bill would only restrict foreign aid under the stipulation that nations earn US aid based on their need and behavior; only Egypt, Libya and Pakistan were singled out for their aid to be ended. How could such a compromising Bill meet with such strong opposition? The truth is that foreign aid will be defended tooth-and-nail in Washington because the establishment benefits by bribing dictators to fall in line with US aspirations of world-wide power.

The basic argument from the bipartisan opposition to Paul - lead by Senators John Kerry and John McCain; both former Presidential candidates of the two major parties - is: you can't end foreign aid, we're trying to nation build here (and anyone who hasn't set foot in an airport in Cairo or Tripoli cannot disagree)!

The claim that foreign aid prompts good behavior from otherwise unfriendly nations is most obviously untrue, as seen in recently years by the Pakistani sanctioning of Osama Bin Laden and the past attacks on US Embassies in Egypt and Libya. The Egyptian and Libyan governments did not protect the US Embassy in their countries, despite the large amount of aid that the United States provides, and the Pakistani government arrested, tortured and continues to detain the Doctor who helped the US kill Bin Laden. The increased presence of Al-Qaeda in Libya and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt definitely throws into question the idea that both countries will be thriving in liberty with US dollars anytime soon.

Foreign aid has not prompted these countries to act as an ally would - it is as plain as the nose on Senator Kerry's very long face. Are those 91 Senators really convinced that foreign aid should have no restrictions despite the fact that it fails to create allies, is stolen by dictators and is on the whole unconstitutional? Perhaps other untold reasons exist as to why they opposed the generally light restrictions on foreign aid seen in Rand Paul's Bill.

The Man Who Gaffed

Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney has been boiling in controversy over a recently released video that has Democrats rebuking and the news world buzzing. Mitt Romney was caught on tape at a fundraiser last May saying, among other things:

All right, there are 47 percent who are with [Obama], who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. And he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that's what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people—I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

Romney is correct that 47% of people do not pay income tax. Romney is also correct that a mentality of entitlement, resentment and victimization exists precisely because of the welfare state (not that he would actually do anything to shrink it - nope, not a thing). This has put the pundits up in arms largely because the truth can hurt: those who are dependent on welfare will vote for the Party that runs on giving people more welfare. However, Romney fails to understand who this 47% is - since much of it may very well vote for him. This includes retirees and those households whose income tax breaks simply equal out (and sometimes overcompensate) their income tax payments; hardly a great definition of "dependents."

This episode has been used by the Left to help support their idea that Mitt Romney is some kind of dark lord of the free market and by the Right to help support their idea that Romney is some kind of armor-clad champion of the free market. However, I think Romney's recent "gaffe" helps to prove both camps wrong. Much has been made over the specifics of Romney's words but none of it actually gets to the real heart of the matter as I see it.

Romney's remarks actually coincide with a larger GOP attempt to eliminate income tax "loopholes" altogether so every American has "skin in the game." This, of course, exposes a deep indifference to an actual free market since, if anything, loopholes should be expanded so that no one ends up paying any income tax at all. The income tax is immoral on its face. Income is property that, for most people, is legitimately earned through work. The income tax therefore operates under the false assumption that the government is the actual owner of your income. On pay day, the government first takes their share (as they define it) of your rightfully-earned paycheck and then apportions to you, the lowly worker, the remains. Is this property rights? Is this freedom? It certainly sounds like theft.  

So are those who pay no income tax really "victims"? I say those who are forced to pay the immoral income tax are the victims.

The Fourth Branch of Government

In light of the recent QE3 package, the great Judge Andrew Napolitano appeared on Fox News to enlighten the less-than-great crew at Fox & Friends about the Federal Reserve.

From Mediaite.com:

Judge Andrew Napolitano stopped by Fox & Friends‘ curvy couch on Tuesday, where he shared his criticism for the Federal Reserve.
 
Arguing that it is neither federal nor a reserve, the Judge noted that the job of the Fed is to make the president — no matter who the president may be — look good. 

Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke, he continued, said he would essentially create 40 billion in cash “out of thin air” and put it in the accounts for the federal government. “That is more cash chasing, available for, the same amount of goods and services,” he said. “Answer: inflation.”

Later, the Judge shared a brief history of the government’s relationship to money in the U.S., including a description of the Coinage Act.

What the Fed is now attempting, he concluded, is ultimately a short-term solution designed to “make someone look good” between now and the election — “and you know who that is.”

Take a look, via Fox News

The Judge is spot-on as always - but one quote from the interview caught my attention more than anything Mediaite mentioned. The Judge, echoing a similar comment from George Will, stated that "The Fed is like the fourth branch of our government."

The Federal Reserve, and all of the power and influence it wields, is indeed already a De-facto fourth branch of the United States Federal Government. Of course, anyone who has read the Constitution knows that the government is supposed to have only three branches! Unlike the official three branches of government, each with its own specific set of powers that check and balance those of the other branches, this fourth branch of government is unique in that nothing is out of its reach and none of the other branches seem to be an effective check against it.

Existing under the guise of being a private entity, the Federal Reserve is without a doubt the branch of government that poses the greatest danger to liberty. The way that the Fed inflates the money supply by printing money out of thin air destroys the buying power of the US dollar. Anyone familiar with the Weimar Republic understands how inflation can destroy a society. Washington's wasteful, unconstitutional and deadly spending is likewise partly funded by the Fed's ability to print at will. Ron Paul correctly states in his excellent book End the Fed that "It is no coincidence that the century of total war coincided with the century of central banking."

Is it finally time to end the Fed, now after 100 years of disastrous Fed intervention? That would be nice but it does not necessarily need to end at that conclusion. Competing currencies would be a good compromise in the pursuit of sound money - hell, even an audit of the Fed's books is at least a common sense first step towards a stronger dollar. Unfortunately, the Federal Reserve still has its tentacles firmly gripped around the financial and political systems and there is no end in sight.

 

The Constitution Party Ain't so Goode

The John Stossel show recently aired an episode dedicated to 2012 third party presidential candidates spotlighting Socialist candidate Stewart Alexander, Libertarian candidate and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson and Constitution Party candidate and former Virginia Congressman Virgil Goode.

Goode's segment made for some particularly interesting and entertaining television. The supposedly constituionally-minded Virgil Goode called for a moritorium on immigration and does not support drug legalization.

That is correct: the candidate that wants us all to believe that he stands for a strict interpretation of the Constitution supports, among other things, drug prohibition! Responding to Goode's pro-Drug War position, Libertarian Gary Johnson refered to Thomas Jefferson supposedly "smoking hemp on the veranda." Goode's answer to Johnson is priceless: "you're not going to find in here (the Constitution) dealing with marijuana or any other types of drugs because the Fouding Fathers probably... didn't know about it."

The Constitution indeed does not address the use of drugs. Therefore, the Federal Government is not given any powers over drugs and cannot wage their drug war with any constitutional conscience. The US Constitution grants powers to the Federal Government; anything that is not expressly delegated to the Federal Government is relegated to the States. Goode trumps his own pro-Drug War stance with his final comment.

Goode is also completely wrong that the Founding Fathers "didn't know about" the drugs that are illegal today. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington both grew hemp. In all fairness, Johnson is not quite correct either. Although Jefferson did grow hemp, the quote that Johnson refers to ("some of my finest hours have been on my back veranda, smoking hemp...") appears to be false. Jefferson may very well have been a huge pothead - but the exact quote in question does not exist in any of Jefferson's writings.

One has to admire the glorious irony of an unconstituional position from a Constitution Party candidate.

A Clear Case of Blowback

A major wave of violence against the United States has occurred within recent days. On the anniversary of September 11th, a mob descended upon the US Embassy in Cairo, Egypt. Later that day, a militant group attacked the US Embassy in Libya, killing the US Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, and a number of others. The violence continues to spread; the US Embassy in Yemen is the latest to get attacked.

While some pundits are quick to blame President Obama for the attack against the US Embassy in Libya for such trivial points as a failure of leadership or missed meetings, a more accurate cause goes beyond the President's role in Libya. The CIA has defined a term called "blowback": the unintended consequences for US actions in foreign nations. One textbook example of blowback is the Iran Hostage Crisis during the Iranian Revolution against the Shah in 1979, a reaction of the 1953 CIA/MI6-backed coup that first installed the Shah. Another is the terrorist attacks on 9-11-2001, which was a response to the various deadly US interventions in the Middle East throughout the 1990s.

It is important to realize that the recent events of the Middle East likewise exist out of a historical context of US intervention.

• The Egyptian people are still angry for the role of the United States in propping up and funding ex-tyrant Hosni Mubarak. More recently, the US had its nose firmly snug inside Egypt throughout the supposed "Arab Spring"; first the United States signaled support for Mubarak and then switched sympathies towards the rebels. The presence of the United States in Egyptian affairs was unwelcome - unless you were a dictator in need of financial aid.
• The events in Libya stem directly from the significant role that the United States played during the War in Libya. Whether the attack on the US Embassy was committed by ex-Qaddafi forces or Al-Qaeda sympathizers both have their grievances that grew out of the interventionist policies of the United States. Clearly, the way that the US opened the door to the increased presence of Al-Qaeda in Libya did not prevent the death of Ambassador Stevens.
• US drone strikes have been occurring throughout Yemen for some time; a United States citizen was even killed by a drone strike in Yemen without due process. Naturally, the people of Yemen do not want the United States bombing their country and a recent US drone strike that missed its target completely, killing 13 innocent people, has further angered the Yemeni people.

These events, especially the horrific violence in Libya, have prompted Americans to ask the question "Why?" Although the question "why do they hate us?" is often asked, rarely do those posing the question ever listen to the answers from the perpetrators. Terrorist violence is never, ever justifiable - but the motives for the evil acts are explainable. Root causes exist explaining why certain acts of terrorism have occurred and such things are necessary to understand if such acts are to be prevented in the future.

Where and when events like these take place is nearly impossible to predict in specific terms; however, the idea of a deadly attack committed against the United States is quite predictable due to the nation's interventionist foreign policies. Reacting to the Embassy attack by sending more warships and drones to Libya while continuing foreign aid to dictators (as Obama has) only exasperates the problem and exposes the government's lack of understanding of the situation. These interventionist policies anger the populations of the countries the US intervenes in; making it easier for the fringe lunatic groups to win converts to their evil cause and placing the population of the United States in greater danger. 

George Washington stated in his Farewell Address (regarding the role of the United States in European affairs at that time): 

"The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities."

Thomas Jefferson echoed a similar statement in his First Inaugural Address:

"....peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none...."

The United States should emulate the foreign policy positions of its Founding Fathers if this era of blowback is to end. The American people and world as a whole will be much safer if the interventionist policies of the United States government are reversed and a policy of a friendship with all nations and border defense only is adopted. Remove the military bases on foreign lands (especially in those whose populations do not want them there), end all foreign aid and open trade with all nations. As it is right now, how can the United States defend itself from the policies of its own government?

Lost in the DolFrums

I ran into a CNN article entitled "Obama's Three Big Mistakes" by David Frum about a week after it was published - but I feel compelled to comment on it anyway. A former Bush speechwriter who helped coin the phrase "Axis of Evil," Frum responds to the claim that Obama might be flawed in some ways but not on issues regarding policy by specifically listing three perceived policy mistakes during President Obama's first year in office:

1. Deferring to Democrats in Congress on the writing of the fiscal stimulus.

2. Failing to get the Federal Reserve to support said fiscal stimulus.

3. Betting the presidency on a best-case scenario.

Naturally, CNN publishes works from David Frum: an approved dissenting voice against the current administration because he does not advocate a free market. David Frum's attacks on Obama are weak - and not for the reasons one might assume. Although identifying himself as a Republican, Frum's attacks come curiously (or not so curiously?) from the Left. Note that Frum does not disapprove of Obama's actual policies (which were, only more so, the same policies of Frum's old boss George W. Bush), he only disapproves of the fact that, in his mind, Obama did not go far enough with those policies.

Frum's first complaint is that Obama deferred his stimulus, under the cheeky title of "the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act," to the Democrats in Congress. Why should that matter, one might ask? Frum states, "Congress larded up the stimulus with ancient Democratic wish lists utterly irrelevant to the crisis at hand." No doubt this is true, as central planners lack the knowledge necessary to successfully plan an economy. However, not much disconnect exists between Obama and his Democrat Party; evidenced by the fact that Obama voted with his fellow Democrats 96% of the time during his term as Senator. Serious doubts can be cast over the idea that the 2009 stimulus would have looked significantly different had Obama written every word himself.

Frum's second complaint is that the Federal Reserve did not support Obama's stimulus enough; an apparent failure of Obama's leadership. Seeing as how the Federal Reserve more than tripled the monetary supply since the meltdown occurred in 2008, the idea that the Federal Reserve did not do enough is a bit hard to swallow. However, one could also point out that the meltdown occurred precisely because of the inflationary and distorted policies of the Federal Reserve that had been active within the market all along. The last thing the economy would need is the Fed to do more of what caused the problem in the first place.

Frum then releases his inner pundit as he airs his third complaint, stating that Obama over-sold his abilities to fix the recession. Obama's big mistake here, according to Frum, is that "Recovery from a crash like 2008 can take years. Yet even armed with this information, Obama did nothing to prepare the public or his administration for the worst. Instead, he allowed his vice president to tout 2010 as 'recovery summer.'" Wait a second: is this even a question of policy? It seems more like a question of PR - and Obama has a team of people that contribute to that aspect of his Presidency. But more importantly, if recessions actually do take years to correct, then why did the Depression of 1920 correct itself in about one year? The initial economic downturn of the Depression of 1920 was in some ways worse than that which sparked the much more well-known Great Depression - and yet, the response of the federal government at that time was essentially nothing and the economy bounced back very quickly. And yet Frum will have us believe that Obama's mistake was that he did not prepare the public for "the worst" of what comes out of his own policies? I would say that Obama's big mistake was not emulating the government's response to the 1920 Depression.

Despite what David Frum will admit, Obama has been a bad president not because his policies do not go far enough but because his policies are inherently flawed and dangerous. The idea that the government should reallocate wealth towards any kind of "stimulus" is fundamentally flawed since it was these interventionist policies of the federal government that created the problems in the first place. Likewise, the idea that the Federal Reserve did not go far enough in creating unwarranted credit and money out of thin air is absolutely flawed and was the direct cause of the '08 meltdown and currently is the cause of the devaluing US dollar. But I suppose Neocon Tweedle Frum, no friend of the free market in any way, will continue to roll endlessly in these doldrums, fooling conservatives into accepting big government solutions to big government-caused problems.

Mitt Romney's Message to America

Mitt Romney's acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention on Thursday was praised as a GOP success. With a rare blip of honesty, Fred Barnes correctly notes that Romney "followed the script for the convention flawlessly." Well, we all know now what that script was - and perish the thought that Romney might even have an original idea that goes against the scripted status quo!

Part of the script of the GOP (both of the major political parties, in fact) is, of course, a dangerous interventionist foreign policy that inevitably leads to blowback. Although other speakers did not talk specifically about foreign affairs, choosing to speak mostly on economic issues or share personal stories, Romney certainly stayed on script. Romney spoke about many things (most of which were platitudinous) but his words regarding foreign policy rang the loudest in my ears. From what I could discern, it sounded like Romney was preparing an already war-weary nation for four more years of new war, should he win in November.

The first war Romney promised was a trade war with China:

...we will make trade work for America by forging new trade agreements. And when nations cheat in trade, there will be unmistakable consequences.

Romney says that China has already initiated this trade war by being a "currency manipulator." Now, there is no question that China is a currency manipulator - but no worse than the United States. The Federal Reserve has executed a number of quantitative easing packages throughout the decades (and the question is not if QE3 will happen but when - UPDATE (9/13/2012): here it is) which does nothing but manipulate the currency by flooding the money supply, creating inflation and weakening the purchasing power of the US dollar. By all means curtail the Federal Reserve (of course Romney is not interested in doing that)! However, if being a currency manipulator makes one a trade "cheat," the United States has been guilty for about 100 years.

Of course, the war promises do not stop there, Romney promises a more conventional war with Iran:

Every American was relieved the day President Obama gave the order, and Seal Team Six took out Osama bin Laden. But on another front, every American is less secure today because he has failed to slow Iran’s nuclear threat.

In his first TV interview as president, he said we should talk to Iran. We’re still talking, and Iran’s centrifuges are still spinning.

Yes. That is exactly what we need - another war in the Middle East built upon an unsubstantiated claim that an unfriendly nation has a nuclear weapons program. How will Iran harm the United States with its inferior and aged air force exactly?

But that's not all! The last Romney-promised war is another Cold War with Russia:

[Obama] abandoned our friends in Poland by walking away from our missile defense commitments, but is eager to give Russia’s President Putin the flexibility he desires, after the election. Under my administration, our friends will see more loyalty, and Mr. Putin will see a little less flexibility and more backbone.

While Obama's open-mic slip-up regarding Putin was certainly creepy and indicative of his elitist nature, Romney's intention to poke the bear is not any better. What would happen if Russia tried to put a missile system in our backyard? In say.... Cuba? Wait! That already happened 50 years ago! For those who may have forgotten, it was called the Cuban Missile Crisis. Few Republicans seem to be able to put themselves in other peoples' shoes and follow the Golden Rule when it applies to what the United States does to other nations. Romney really highlighted this unfortunate fact. If Poland wants a missile shield against Russia, they are going to have to build one themselves; America needs to quit the nation-building business. Provoking Russia with a missile system that threatens them is simply neither a good idea nor an example of a free people interacting peacefully with others.

Romney finally summed up his foreign policy as "the bipartisan foreign policy legacy of Truman and Reagan." A more apt description of this foreign policy would actually be Wilsonian but at least the GOP establishment is seemingly finally refraining from falsely claiming that they seek the foreign policy of the Founding Fathers (which they fundamentally reject). Wilson coined the idea that the world must be made safe for democracy - through war, of course - a notion that the United States has cradled close to heart ever since. Naturally, few (if any) nations ever became democracies in the Jeffersonian tradition after a bout of good-old-fashioned American war (and certainly not recently, as seen here, here and here - just for starters).

Throughout the RNC week, the Republicans by and large made a great case against the Obama administration by highlighting its obvious failures. However, the Republicans failed to give a convincing argument in favor of voting for team Romney/Ryan. Romney's short but not-so-subtle calls for policies that lead to wars of various kinds certainly cannot help the GOP's presidential bid.

"I [Heart] Obamacare"

I noticed an interesting bumper sticker on the way home from work the other day. It read: "I [Heart] Obamacare" (with a cartoon heart in between). Taking it on face value, it is not that interesting. Assuming "heart"=love in this case, this bumper sticker is a simple yet astonishing admission of the driver's affection for the current administration's premier piece of legislation. Big deal, right? However, I am willing to bet that the sticker is more of a proud display of staggering ignorance than knowledgeable support.

Obamacare - AKA: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - is certainly popular among Democrats. As echoed by a popular Facebook meme, Obamacare is seen by many as a righteous assault on big insurance companies and a much needed freeing and cost-lowering benefit to the potential patient.

One might assume from the love affair some have with this legislation that Obamacare creates some kind of brand-new "free" healthcare system. It does not. In fact, not only does Obamacare compound the nature of the insurance-driven healthcare system in America, Obamacare was written and lobbied for by members of the pharmaceutical and insurance industries. Obamacare is a product of corporatism - a marriage of government and big business - that benefits both the government plutocracy and the special interests of the healthcare industry to the explicit detriment of everybody else. The fact is, Obamacare is anything but what is commonly assumed; its vast amount of regulations, fees, taxes and bureaucracy will undoubtedly make healthcare more expensive and generally harder to obtain. This, of course, is exactly what the pharmaceutical and insurance companies wanted.

An unfortunate widely-held misconception exists insisting that government programs somehow do not benefit the rich. To the contrary, government programs are lobbied for by big corporations. Only the richest people and the biggest corporations can afford to adhere to all of the expensive rules and regulations that fly out of Congress - driving away the competition of small and/or new businesses that cannot afford to follow all of the regulations - hence the large cesspool of lobbyists in Washington.

Since Obamacare mandates that everyone own medical insurance, all of the health insurance companies are guaranteed customers who cannot refuse their product without paying a fine (excuse me: a supposed "tax"). The pharmaceutical companies are further subsidized by taxpayers to provide "cheaper" medical care that will inevitably become more expensive as it becomes scarcer. Obamacare signaled a victory for two groups of people: the political caste, which expands its collection of dependents, and the healthcare industry, which now has a steady stream of profit and virtually no competition to drive costs down. Unfortunately, one group of people has suffered a horrible loss: the American people, who now live less freely with more expensive and lower quality healthcare.

Many did not see the potential for Obama to jump into bed with big business because he stated his support for a different program a number of times throughout the past. Now that Obama is President, we see a very different set of policies; a hypocrisy which the nightly news does not report. The wise could expect a politician like Obama to lie through his teeth about anything should it benefit him but for those who take people at their word, how could one know that Obamacare never was what they thought? Supporting a bill before one knows exactly what is in it is one thing, continuing to support it after the truth has been exposed is quite another. I doubt that those who drive around with an "I [Heart] Obamacare" bumper sticker support the kind of corporatism that birthed the law they think they love. If they actually do support such a thing, perhaps a "Special Interests 2012" or "Corporatist on Board" car ornament would be more fitting.

Paul Ryan: From Ticket to Team

On Saturday, Paul Ryan was selected to run with Mitt Romney as Vice President on the  GOP ticket - now supposedly "America's Comeback Team." The pick is seen as "brilliant" by some, clearly igniting the conservative base and giving hope to some that Ryan's presence on the ticket will win over otherwise unlikely voters. However, I feel the seven-term Congressman from Wisconsin will not gain widespread support from various voting blocks. Instead, his presence on the ticket will only solidify the positions of the major political groups.

Liberals are fired up because they believe that Ryan is some kind of evil draconian budget-cutter who kills the elderly for fun. As if voting for Obama was not already set in stone for these folks, Ryan’s presence on the ticket will only solidify their 'D' vote.

Conservatives are fired up because they believe that Ryan is some kind of courageous fiscal hawk. As if voting for Romney was not already set in stone for these folks, Ryan’s presence on the ticket will only solidify their 'R' vote.

Meanwhile, libertarians understand that Paul Ryan stands for none of the things that the liberals or conservatives think he does. For example, Paul Ryan voted for (among other things):

• TARP
• The auto bailouts
• Housing subsidies
• Unemployment extension
• A national ID card
• The Patriot Act
• No Child Left Behind
• Medicare Part D

Paul Ryan is no fiscal hawk - his budgets do not touch Pentagon spending or even balance for 20-30 years! Make no mistake; Ryan has maintained a false reputation for wanting to limit government when his actions show that he believes government is always the answer. Still, Ryan adds excitement to the GOP ticket because he is a young guy who speaks well (which should make debating this guy interesting) and because his reputation as a fiscal hawk fires up both major political parties for exactly opposite reasons. The 2012 Presidential race is now officially a team sport.

“You Didn’t Build That” – But You Didn’t Have a Choice

Originally posted at Oakdale Patch.

With the Presidential campaign season in full swing, both major political parties are very publically at each other’s throats. After months of shallow finger pointing about who owns Swiss bank accounts or who has eaten a dog in his lifetime, Republicans and Democrats might have accidentally stepped into a legitimate discussion about the relationship between the government and the market. Naturally, in true establishment fashion, neither Party seems to hit the mark on the issue.

Republicans have put President Obama and the Democrats on the defensive after the President’s speech in Roanoke, VA:

“Look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. …. If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. …. The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”

The Mitt Romney campaign is in full attack mode against the President over the phrase “If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that,” which Team Obama claims is taking the President’s words out of context. Although parts of Obama’s speech are just flat out wrong (especially concerning this and this), Romney’s advertised case against Obama’s statement does fall flat as he attacks something the President did not say while agreeing with the part that the President did say. The Obama campaign’s response to the Republican outrage has been to clarify that Obama’s statement merely echoes the Elizabeth Warren line that business is allowed to succeed because people work together under the infrastructure provided by government. This argument lacks teeth as well.

Private goods are indeed transported over public infrastructure (like federal or state-built highways and bridges) and many business owners and their employees are educated in public schools. However, there was not much of a choice in this relationship between the private and the public; was there? The people do not have a lot of say on whether or not a road or a bridge is built and/or maintained by the government as opposed to a private company, even though some data suggests that people prefer private control over such things. Also, a number of private roads exist (and have existed) but not enough for one to be able to avoid government-maintained arteries. Many business employers and employees have likewise been educated by public schools. However, private and in-home options for schooling are in limited supply compared to the Federally-backed public school system. Most parents still seem to choose the untold and unseen costs of this public school system, as it exists under the guise of being the free option. So yes, of course businesses are built upon government infrastructure - because government infrastructure makes up most of what is available.

President Obama is correct: human beings thrive by doing things together. People always have worked together inside the family structure, as part of a variety of greater communities and through the markets. No one could possibly be successful with absolutely no outside contribution from anyone or anything else. However, there is a difference between a system of voluntary commerce and association under a free market and the current US system in which income is taken, often at the point of a gun or threat of imprisonment, to fund state projects that historically have been created and maintained by private investment. Some politicians really do seem to understand how markets operate in a free society. However, other politicians like Barack Obama and Elizabeth Warren clearly do not; worst of all, they prefer this system of coercive central government planning over a voluntary network of individual free enterprise. If Obama and Warren want to celebrate the limits on choice and freedom in the United States of America, they should go ahead and be more upfront about it.

Bloomberg's Striking Solution

The recent shooting in Aurora, CO has been on the forefront of the minds of Americans during the past week. Despite the protests of some, many in the media have used the issue to reignite debate over gun control in the United States. A good debate over anything is always welcome and a sound bite from New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg specifically caught my attention.

Bloomberg, desiring more civilian gun control, insinuated on CNN’s Piers Morgan that the police should strike until Americans concede to more restrictions on guns. To what extent the strike would go was not discussed (surely, if a police strike was held over assault weapons, they could also be held over hand guns, rifles and every kind of gun). The usual suspects went into attack mode and Bloomberg himself has retreated slightly from his original comment. Bloomberg’s proposition certainly sounds crazy but he might be onto something with his police strike idea, as it would achieve the exact opposite of what he assumes.

Bloomberg’s non-solution is built on the false premise that the populace would fall to their knees and concede to every demand of the State for police protection if the cops were to go on strike. I am not convinced this would happen. In fact, gun sales have actually been on the rise in Colorado since the Aurora shooting. Coloradans are clearly not relying solely on the cops to provide security and are actually looking to arm themselves for protection.

The issue is bigger than Colorado: gun ownership has been trending up nationwide since the CO shooting (and prior to that, including my very own Oakdale). Although cops may perform their duties well from day to day, Americans are beginning to realize that they cannot depend on the police to protect them everywhere all of the time. As Mike Adams points out: “The massacre in Aurora took only two minutes to carry out. The average response time of police is, at minimum, six minutes.”

Horrible events like the one seen in Aurora last week cannot be prevented with a single piece of legislation; people do not kill simply because they have guns, there are multiple factors (like this, this and this) that play into why someone would commit a terrible act of violence. Some motives will never be known.

But one thing is clear: a police strike would not achieve the ends that Mayor Bloomberg originally thought it could regarding violence and gun control. However, if the cops were to go on strike, violence committed by police officers would disappear and people would only have more incentive to be personally armed. Suddenly, Bloomberg’s solution does not sound like such a bad idea after all.

Use Protection: The First Amendment

Originally posted at Oakdale Patch.

Two weeks ago, Wednesday Feb. 29, radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh made some incendiary comments. Well, what else is new? The difference between Limbaugh’s recent set of comments and those of the past is that these specific comments have somehow ignited widespread media fury. Discussing Georgetown Law School student Sandra Fluke’s testimony before Congress in support of insurance mandates for birth control, Limbaugh, on top of displaying an ignorance of oral contraceptives, called her a few names (of which I am sure the reader is aware of but can research if not). Days after a media backlash and subsequent loss of sponsors, Limbaugh apologized.

The only thing more frustrating than Limbaugh’s actual comments is this entire so-called "controversy" perpetuated by those inherently obsessed with Rush Limbaugh no matter what he says or does, shoving this story down the throats of the rest of us. Those of us who do not listen to Limbaugh could have been spared the irritation—but no! One cannot escape the story. The Limbaugh/Fluke controversy is all over television, radio, news outlets, Facebook, Twitter and now Oakdale Patch (you’re welcome).

Everyone has weighed in, from comedians to musicians to pundits—time was even wasted on the House floor on the subject. But what is the point of all this? Rush Limbaugh has been on the radio making people upset for over 20 years; I have a hard time believing that only now has he crossed the line. Were Limbaugh’s comments insulting? Although I do believe Limbaugh was attempting to joke around (albeit mean-spiritedly) with his comments, I answer a subjective yes; it was insulting—and plenty weird at that. Was Limbaugh’s apology sincere? No one but Limbaugh can honestly answer that question. The most significant piece to this Limbaugh/Fluke “controversy” however is neither the specifics of Limbaugh’s comments nor the greater idea of insurance-covered contraception that Fluke advocates. No, the most important piece to this story is how the freedom of speech is being observed.

The reaction to Limbaugh’s comments has been more over-the-top than even Limbaugh is on a daily basis. Refuting the misinformation about oral birth control is welcome but the media frenzy has unfortunately not been limited to such an intellectual discussion. In fact, the narrative focus seems to be on the particulars of Limbaugh’s comments, which has done nothing but distract from the contraception and insurance mandate questions offered during the Congressional hearing. The media’s attempt to shame Limbaugh into silence seems pointless since his all-too-characteristic comments speak for themselves to the pint-sized concern of his 40 million-plus fan base. Doubtful are grounds for libel; therefore, what the commentary eventually boils down to is this: simply yet another misguided round of motor-mouthing from Mr. Limbaugh. So… What? Who cares? Limbaugh has no authority over our lives; Why is this news? Has a crime been committed? I see none.

I am very satisfied to see figures like Adam Carolla and Bill Maher, not unfamiliar with incendiary comments in the pursuit of humor themselves, stand up for Limbaugh purely on the basis of free speech. Allow me to join in.

This latest Limbaugh episode exposes the speech intolerance in America today. The Bill of Rights begins by addressing our natural right to free speech and yet, while always reserving that right for themselves, rarely do Americans respect that right for others. The entire nation seems to gasp and recoil every time somebody utters something not illegal or dangerous—but merely offensive. Why? The First Amendment does not protect only speech that everyone agrees with, it is meant to protect speech that others find provocative or downright offensive as well. One would assume that, in a nation that embraces the freedom of words, speech of all kinds would be not automatically endorsed but certainly permissible. Many if not most Americans seem to lack the ability to accept or even ignore offensive speech. The great irony in the media’s mission to shame and silence Limbaugh is that they are giving him the attention he seeks—ignoring him would have been a much more effective tool to mute Limbaugh’s voice and influence in politics.

Like it or not, Rush Limbaugh will continue on expressing his opinion in his own way for years to come and it is sure to offend at least a portion of the population. But the freedom to insult and be insulted is a cornerstone to our great Republic; if offensive speech were inadmissible, there would be no freedom of speech at all and everyone would live with less liberty. Americans must be more generous in the way they apply the First Amendment to others if they expect it to last for the generations to come.