Friday, June 24, 2011

Maybe Keynes Wasn't Right

"We don't have a precise read on why this slower pace of growth is persisting," Bernanke said. He said the weak housing market and problems in the banking system might be "more persistent than we thought."
Bernanke: Drags on economy may last into next year

Here's some ideas for you - central planning doesn't work; the free market isn't an idle pipe dream; Keynes was wrong.

Obama Health Care - Let's Give a Waiver to the Entire Country

They [the administration] began with the claim that there was no difference between activity and inactivity, since both involved decisions, and thus could be reached under the commerce power. Having largely abandoned this unwinnable argument, they now claim that the mandate does not really compel individuals to buy insurance, but merely regulates their inevitable future health-care consumption.

But because the future consumption of nearly all existing goods and services is inevitable across the entire population, this argument means that Americans can then be compelled to purchase an infinite variety of goods and services chosen by Washington. Far from limiting what government can do, this is the ultimate enabling principle. Even Soviet apparatchiks, who told producers what to make, did not dare tell people what to buy.

I hope, pray, that enought people have woken up; that the 2010 elections were for real; that the anger at big government liberalism and disgust at entitlement programs remains - even as a voter's "own" entitlement program gets cut.

If the above is true then Obama Care is toast come 2012 and we can go to the next step - a revival of respect for the 10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

and the concept of "States Rights" and "Laboratories of the States".

And then finally have it remembered that the locus of sovereignty resides in the people; that government has no power that was not delegated to it.

"That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them."

Virginia Declaration of Rights

Maybe then we can start pushing back against the Counter-Enlightenment (Marxism and contemporary liberalism) and return to the Enlightenment ideals of individualism, liberty and reason.

Monday, June 20, 2011

Farrakan takes on Obama over Libya

Besides the obvious about any Farrakan speach - what's going on with his Christian preaching? I know that a few years ago he claimed that he was both a Christian and a Muslim but I must say that I found his continual use of Christian imagry to be surprising.

How much does this speach indicate a softening of support for Obama in the Black community? Will Black turnout for Obama decrease by 1%, 2%, 5%?

Thursday, June 16, 2011

Libya Action not Covered by the War Power Act

How is it possible that people can still be disgusted with Bush and not with Obama? Whether one thinks that Iraq made sense or not - it was approved by Congress and it followed numerous UN resolutions. I would not have started the Iraq War but once started it needed to be finished. That said - does anybody think for one second that actions such as exist in Libya aren't covered by the War Powers Act?

According to the White House the “U.S. operations [in Libya] do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve U.S. ground troops", therefore this operation does not require the Obama Administration to ask for Congressional approval under the War Powers Act. I have not parsed the War Powers Act but if the sinking of the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were considered acts of war by the US then isn't understood that launching missles are also acts of war?

And, if it can be argued that the Libyan actions do not contravene the War Powers Act as flying sorties does not equal introducing American forces into hostilities and that the examples of Pearl Harbor and 9/11 are irrelevant to the argument then at least, isn't it interesting that the whole argument comes down to original intent? Listen to what Mr. Harold Koh, the State Department legal advisor, said:

"We are not saying the president can take the country into war on his own,” said Mr. Koh, a former Yale Law School dean and outspoken critic of the Bush administration’s expansive theories of executive power. “We are not saying the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional or should be scrapped or that we can refuse to consult Congress. We are saying the limited nature of this particular mission is not the kind of ‘hostilities’ envisioned by the War Powers Resolution.”

Sounds like an original intent argument to me. Isn't it delicious to hear Democrats and fellow-travellers arguing over original intent? My understanding of the "original intent" of the War Powers Act was that Presidents couldn't unilaterally take us into war; that such actions required Congressional approval. If this action in Libya is not covered by the War Powers Act then we must amend and update the act to include such actions.

The quotes come from a New York Times article: White House Defends Continuing U.S. Role in Libya Operation