Posts
Stop the Federal Spending Spree | Tad DeHaven | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Republican lack of credibility on cutting spending can be seen in the House Republican leadership's new YouCut Web site. Each week the Web site lists five possible spending cuts for citizens to vote on. The 'winning' cut proposal then goes to the House floor for a vote.
Engaging citizens in the government's spending crisis is a good idea. The problem: the cuts the Republican leadership has selected thus far are minuscule.
For instance, one item recently proposed for cutting was $1 million in mohair subsidies. In the world of federal agriculture subsidies, this cut represents chump change.
Republicans can't be considered serious about restraining the budget unless they put subsidies for wheat, corn, soybeans, rice and cotton on the chopping block."
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
The Tea Party and the Drug War | Jeffrey A. Miron | Cato Institute: Commentary
The Tea Party and the Drug War | Jeffrey A. Miron | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Drug prohibition, at least when imposed at the federal level, is also hard to reconcile with constitutionally limited government. The Constitution gives the federal government a few expressly enumerated powers, with all others reserved to the states (or to the people) under the Tenth Amendment. None of the enumerated powers authorizes Congress to outlaw specific products, only to regulate interstate commerce. Thus laws regulating interstate trade in drugs might pass constitutional muster, but outright bans cannot. Indeed, when the United States wanted to outlaw alcohol, it amended the Constitution itself to do so. The country has never adopted such a constitutional authorization for drug prohibition."
The Taboo Against Truth - Ralph Raico - Mises Daily
The Taboo Against Truth - Ralph Raico - Mises Daily: "There was, first of all, the policy of terror bombing of the cities of Germany, begun by the British in 1942. The Principal Assistant Secretary of the Air Ministry later boasted of the British initiative in the wholesale massacring of civilians from the air.[18] Altogether, the RAF and US Army Air Corps killed around 600,000 German civilians,[19] whose deaths were aptly characterized by the British military historian and Major-General J.F.C. Fuller as 'appalling slaughterings, which would have disgraced Attila.'[20] A recent British military historian has concluded: 'The cost of the bomber offensive in life, treasure, and moral superiority over the enemy tragically outstripped the results that it achieved.'[21]"
"Today it is fairly well-known that, when the war was over, British and American political and military leaders directed the forced repatriation of hundreds of thousands of Soviet subjects (and the surrender of some, like the Cossacks, who had never been subjects of the Soviet state). Many were executed, most were channeled into the gulag. Solzhenitsyn had bitter words for the Western leaders who handed over to Stalin the remnants of Vlasov's Russian Army of Liberation"
"The great crime that is today virtually forgotten was the expulsion starting in 1945 of the Germans from their centuries-old homelands in East Prussia, Pomerania, Silesia, Sudetenland, and elsewhere. About 16 million persons were displaced, with about 2 million of them dying in the process.[25] This is a fact, which, as the American legal scholar Alfred de Zayas dryly notes, 'has somehow escaped the attention it deserves.'[26] While those directly guilty were principally the Soviets, Poles, and Czechs (the last led by the celebrated democrat and humanist, Eduard Benes), British and American leaders early on authorized the principle of expulsion of the Germans and thus set the stage for what occurred at the war's end."
"Today it is fairly well-known that, when the war was over, British and American political and military leaders directed the forced repatriation of hundreds of thousands of Soviet subjects (and the surrender of some, like the Cossacks, who had never been subjects of the Soviet state). Many were executed, most were channeled into the gulag. Solzhenitsyn had bitter words for the Western leaders who handed over to Stalin the remnants of Vlasov's Russian Army of Liberation"
"The great crime that is today virtually forgotten was the expulsion starting in 1945 of the Germans from their centuries-old homelands in East Prussia, Pomerania, Silesia, Sudetenland, and elsewhere. About 16 million persons were displaced, with about 2 million of them dying in the process.[25] This is a fact, which, as the American legal scholar Alfred de Zayas dryly notes, 'has somehow escaped the attention it deserves.'[26] While those directly guilty were principally the Soviets, Poles, and Czechs (the last led by the celebrated democrat and humanist, Eduard Benes), British and American leaders early on authorized the principle of expulsion of the Germans and thus set the stage for what occurred at the war's end."
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Indicting the First Amendment | Nat Hentoff | Cato Institute: Commentary
Indicting the First Amendment | Nat Hentoff | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Here is part of [Shore's] Feb. 26 messages to Bunning staffers: 'Are you'all insane. No checks equal no food for me. DO YOU GET IT?'"
"U.S. Marshals appeared at Shore's door and handed him a grand jury indictment."
"Shore 'did utilize a telecommunications device, that is a computer, whether or not communication ensued, without disclosing his identity and with the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, and harass any person who received the communication.'"
"If found guilty, Shore — or anyone indicted for sending such so-called harassing messages — could be imprisoned for up to two years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000."
"U.S. Marshals appeared at Shore's door and handed him a grand jury indictment."
"Shore 'did utilize a telecommunications device, that is a computer, whether or not communication ensued, without disclosing his identity and with the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, and harass any person who received the communication.'"
"If found guilty, Shore — or anyone indicted for sending such so-called harassing messages — could be imprisoned for up to two years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000."
FBI used 'dragnet' warrantless cell tracking | Privacy Inc. - CNET News
FBI used 'dragnet' warrantless cell tracking | Privacy Inc. - CNET News: "The FBI obtained a secret order -- it has not been made public -- commanding nine different telephone companies to provide federal police 'with all cell site tracking data and cell site locator information for all incoming and outgoing calls to and from the target numbers.'
But because the U.S. Justice Department did not obtain a warrant by proving to a judge that there was probable cause to suspect criminal activity, there's now a risk that the evidence from the location surveillance may be tossed out of court as illegally obtained."
But because the U.S. Justice Department did not obtain a warrant by proving to a judge that there was probable cause to suspect criminal activity, there's now a risk that the evidence from the location surveillance may be tossed out of court as illegally obtained."
Obama's Security Strategy Is Clueless | Ted Galen Carpenter | Cato Institute: Commentary
Obama's Security Strategy Is Clueless | Ted Galen Carpenter | Cato Institute: Commentary: "The principal theme in this NSS is burden sharing. The United States, the document stresses, cannot afford to be the world's sole policeman. Washington needs partners who are willing and able to meet security challenges and help preserve global peace and prosperity.
But administrations since the founding of NATO in 1949 have emphasized the need for such burden sharing — with a spectacular lack of success. And successive generations of U.S. officials have vented their impotent frustration. President Dwight Eisenhower's secretary of state, John Foster Dulles, warned the European allies in 1954 that if they didn't do more for the common defense effort against the Soviet Union, the United States would have to conduct an 'agonizing reappraisal' of its commitment to Europe. The NATO allies treated his warning as the empty threat that it was. Their security free riding on the United States barely diminished throughout the remainder of the Cold War."
But administrations since the founding of NATO in 1949 have emphasized the need for such burden sharing — with a spectacular lack of success. And successive generations of U.S. officials have vented their impotent frustration. President Dwight Eisenhower's secretary of state, John Foster Dulles, warned the European allies in 1954 that if they didn't do more for the common defense effort against the Soviet Union, the United States would have to conduct an 'agonizing reappraisal' of its commitment to Europe. The NATO allies treated his warning as the empty threat that it was. Their security free riding on the United States barely diminished throughout the remainder of the Cold War."
Monday, June 21, 2010
FOXNews.com - Obama Appeals to Congress for $50 Billion in Emergency Aid
FOXNews.com - Obama Appeals to Congress for $50 Billion in Emergency Aid: "Congressional leaders received a letter from the president asking for almost $50 billion for distribution to state and local governments, saying that increased spending is “urgent and unavoidable,” the Post reported. The money would protect the jobs of teachers, police and firefighters.
“Because the urgency is high—many school districts, cities and states are already being forced to make these layoffs,” Obama wrote, “these provisions must be passed as quickly as possible.”
Obama’s plea comes despite last year’s $787 billion economic stimulus package, which worked to stabilize the failing economy, but did little to help the country’s high unemployment rate. At 9.7 percent, unemployment is nearly the same as it was a year ago."
He was very wrong about the effect of the stimulus and what is left of his credibility on economics?
“Because the urgency is high—many school districts, cities and states are already being forced to make these layoffs,” Obama wrote, “these provisions must be passed as quickly as possible.”
Obama’s plea comes despite last year’s $787 billion economic stimulus package, which worked to stabilize the failing economy, but did little to help the country’s high unemployment rate. At 9.7 percent, unemployment is nearly the same as it was a year ago."
He was very wrong about the effect of the stimulus and what is left of his credibility on economics?
Jobs
Campaign For Liberty: "Excluding temporary census workers, only 25,000 private sector jobs were added in May, less than 20% of the number needed just to keep pace with the growth in the workforce. The President's crack team of Keynesian number crunchers had forecasted around 500,000.
Mr. Obama somehow managed to blame businesses for the blown call, chiding them for unwarranted hiring reticence in the face of an expanding GDP. In doing so, he displayed an unnerving lack of understanding of how jobs are created and how GDP is aggregated.
Businesses do not hire workers to grow the economy, to make a President's economic recovery plan work, or to keep some magic ratio to GDP; we only hire workers to meet increased demand for our products and services. And demand is not growing, it is shrinking."
Mr. Obama somehow managed to blame businesses for the blown call, chiding them for unwarranted hiring reticence in the face of an expanding GDP. In doing so, he displayed an unnerving lack of understanding of how jobs are created and how GDP is aggregated.
Businesses do not hire workers to grow the economy, to make a President's economic recovery plan work, or to keep some magic ratio to GDP; we only hire workers to meet increased demand for our products and services. And demand is not growing, it is shrinking."
Campaign For Liberty
Campaign For Liberty: "Do you remember those dreadful scenes of oil-drenched Norwegian fiords, or the helpless birds stuck in the ooze in Kuwait, or the miles and miles of black gunk layered over the beaches of Saudi, Dubai, and UAE? That's right, you don't - because when those underwater wells blew, these foreign fleets scooped up all the oil before it ever hit shore.
As soon as the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded, the Dutch and Belgians and eleven other countries immediately offered to send their oil-sucking fleets to the Gulf, but President Obama refused to allow it. The use of these vessels is prohibited by the Jones Act, and unlike past Presidents in times of crisis, he has refused to waive it.
The Jones Act is a 1920 law that prohibits the use of foreign vessels and crews to transport cargo between U.S. ports. It can be waived by Presidential order at his discretion. It was enacted to protect union shipbuilding jobs, although like all protectionist measures, it has had just the opposite effect and we now produce less than 1% of the world's ships."
As soon as the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded, the Dutch and Belgians and eleven other countries immediately offered to send their oil-sucking fleets to the Gulf, but President Obama refused to allow it. The use of these vessels is prohibited by the Jones Act, and unlike past Presidents in times of crisis, he has refused to waive it.
The Jones Act is a 1920 law that prohibits the use of foreign vessels and crews to transport cargo between U.S. ports. It can be waived by Presidential order at his discretion. It was enacted to protect union shipbuilding jobs, although like all protectionist measures, it has had just the opposite effect and we now produce less than 1% of the world's ships."
FOXNews.com - Israel's new list of goods banned from Gaza limited to weapons, materials with military use
FOXNews.com - Israel's new list of goods banned from Gaza limited to weapons, materials with military use: "The list of banned goods replaces an old list of allowed items that permitted only basic humanitarian supplies for the 1.5 million Gazans. Under the new system, the government said practically all non-military items can enter Gaza freely."
Why was the old list so restrictive?!?
Why was the old list so restrictive?!?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)