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.

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%?

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

On the Killing of Osama Bin Laden

If Guantanamo means more terrorists; if the Iraq War means more recruitment for Al Qaeda then won't killing OBL mean more terrorists and even better reqruitment?

The Arab Spring and the Womens Liberation Movement

There’s been so much to discuss over the last month – and I simply haven’t had enough time to finalize my posts. One thing that I’ve been very interested in has been the “Arab Spring.” Namely are we truly seeing the Arabic peoples rejecting despots and leaning towards a form of democracy? Are we seeing Muslims, particularly Arab Muslims, adjusting to the “shock” that the West had surpassed them in learning and technology; have they rejected all the “5-Year Plans” (to mix metaphors) employed over the last 150 years in order for them to regain their rightful place in the world? Have they gotten past their colonial experience? Are they willing to try a new means to superiority, something besides socialism (tried by their grandparents) or Salafist purity (a return to the pure and Golden Age of Muhammad) which has been ever more dominant over the last 30 years?

If we are to compare to Western History then this would be the 17th C when people, horrified and exhausted by the previous decades of civil war, decided to wage war no longer. One cannot make too close a comparison between the eras as it simply doesn’t hold. However, what I’m looking for is an Arabic world that looks to take care of itself economically and politically rather than one which states: “If all were pure as in the days of the prophet and there were no infidels then everything would be good and wonderful. Bread and dates in every home.”

We see what looks like “green shoots” all over, and in the strangest of fashions – I thought that Sila Sahin was a sign of the times. Here’s a quote from an article:

A Muslim beauty who bared all for Playboy may well be the next victim of an honor killing in Germany, if orthodox Muslims get their way.
When Şahin threw down the g-string, Islam was not amused. Şahin, apparently, grew up in a strict Muslim household. “What I want to say with these photos is, ‘Girls, we don’t have to live according to the rules imposed upon us,’” she told Playboy magazine. “For years I subordinated myself to various societal constraints. The Playboy photo shoot was a total act of liberation.”

Liberation for women isn’t exactly a top item on the Muslim man’s agenda. According to the New York Daily News, “Commenters [on the Internet] spewed that Şahin was ‘shaming Muslim womanhood’ and ‘prostituting herself for money,’ while others warned that she ‘needs to be very careful.’ ”
Muslim Playboy Model Sila Sahin May Lose More Than Clothes

Now, the response of “kill her,” “beat her” are expected. What is not expected is that she posed and that she said that she did so as an “act of liberation.” The women’s movement in the West is missing a big opportunity here, further proof – in case you needed it – that they are more socialist than they are for women’s liberation. I’m a big fan of the women’s liberation movement – not the socialist part; not the nanny state; not the “why can’t boys act more like girls” mentality; not the PC cowardice that is their contribution to the present day Progressive Movement – no, my appreciation for the Women’s Movement is in its individualistic roots where they are argued for women’s right to vote, to drive, to drink, to smoke, to play sports … to be free people.

That’s the Women’s Movement we need to see again.

EDIT: 5/9/2011

Take a look at this video. Is a change really happening in the Muslim world? Or am I being overly optimistic?

Why is the MSM ignoring the Republican Candidate for President?

Why is it that the man who has actually announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination for president does not received any press attention while potential candidates like Donald Trump are mentioned every day?

Is this the MSM doing their job? And, if so, what is their job? Is it to sensationalize the issues? Is it to avoid topics and be snarky? Whatever their job is - it is not to hold a light up to the stories of the day and to give a rational, objective analysis of the facts at hand. The entire Obama Birther issue, for example, is due to the press not doing their job in 2008.

Again, why doesn't the MSM cover the man who has ACTUALLY announced his candidacy? Gary Johnson, is the ex two-term Governor of New Mexico who wants to introduce school vouchers, thinks that Gay Marriage ought to be legal and wants to legalize marihuana. Aren't education, gay marriage and the drug war topics worthy of discussion? Aren't Johnson's opinions different than what you would expect from a Republican candidate? Surely this ex-Governor should be able to break into the news cycle.

Why are this man ignored? Is it because he doesn't fit into the established narrative? Is it that we can't have people knowing that some Republicans want to legalize drugs or gay marriage?

EDIT: When I first wrote this post an hour ago I was under the impression that Herman Cain had announced his candidacy. I edited this post and removed my comments on Herman Cain.