Amazing Speech From Dr. Ron Paul

I cannot think of another politician who has the vision, courage and honesty as Dr. Ron Paul. This is an amazing, moving speech. I pray that more American people will wake up.

To The People of Greece (And The United States)

To the people of Greece - my heart goes out to you; unemployment is spiraling, wages are plummeting and your social safety net is being torn asunder. You can protest and riot against austerity all you want, but it is inescapable; those who live beyond their means and amass unsustainable debt, shall one day live beneath it. Your choices are to institute a regimen of harsh austerity now and pay your debt or default and cut off future credit and face even graver economic instability in the future. On the other hand, the size of the American Economy and the role of the dollar as the de-facto global currency gives us much greater leeway in amassing debt and pursuing monetary tricks, in order to put off our inevitable date with austerity. For decades the American people have accepted the bi-partisan platform of expanding the warfare and welfare state while slashing taxes. This is not the fault of the political establishment, but of the American People, for we elect the Democrats and Republicans, the Bush's and Obama's, who promise the impossible and write off the few voices of conscience and reason, like Dr. Ron Paul, as "kooks" and "radicals." And we as a people chose the path of spending, borrowing and of demanding impossible entitlements from the state. But, the die has been set and sooner than later we will be forced by the iron laws of economics to live beneath our means. If we can summon up the seemingly exhausted wisdom and fortitude of generations past, we can begin to toil, save and invest, so that perhaps our children or grandchildren can live well.

The Problem With Piecemeal Amnesty by Administrative Degree

The Obama Administration recently issued an administrative decree that would review the cases of and suspend the deportation of many, "low priority" violators of immigration laws, i.e. those not considered violent or dangerous. At least on an emotional level, this is positive, because it is heart wrenching to see an individual who unwittingly came to the US as a child face deportation after a routine traffic stop. And it does seem wise to prioritize on the arrest and deportation of dangerous offenders. But, for a host of other reasons which we will consider, this policy shift is quite problematic.

First, although there are arguments that can be made on behalf of an amnesty, it should be achieved openly through the legislative process, not by executive fiat, not by piecemeal administrative degrees. I suspect that the Obama Administration is taking this route because he knows that if such policies were subject to the vote, they would never get passed. Second, no matter how noble the purpose of this administrative decree may be, its aim is not to clarify the execution of the law, but to negate it's intended purpose.

Second, in many cases this will amount to the executive branch overriding the authority of the judicial branch. Although a judge generally has the authority to take an individual's record into account when passing sentence, I do not believe that the executive branch has the authority to mandate this. And to entirely spare a violator of law A from punishment because he did not violate law B and C, at least in this case seems to be more driven by political consideration, not by good jurisprudence. For example, I cannot imagine a judge, in good conscience not punishing a violator of a criminal, civil or regulatory code, because they had not committed other, more serious crimes. In this case, I highly suspect that this is flawed effort by the Obama Administration to shore up its faltering support among Latino Voters, while not alienating other demographic groups.

Last, but not least, the biggest problem with de facto administrative amnesty is that it leaves millions of undocumented immigrants in a legal limbo. Rule of law and common sense dictates that their status must be either be resolved either through a full, de jure amnesty, or the law must be unconditionally carried out, which in most cases would mean deportation. And in the end offering empty pronouncements that raise hope in millions of desperate people is a cruel and cheap political tactic. Mr. Obama, it's time for you to either "step out of the administrative shadows" and seek to change the law, by submitting a comprehensive immigration reform bill to the senate or to shut up and start enforcing the letter and spirit of the law.

The Expansion of Entitlement / Death of Common Sense

The majority of "heartless conservatives" recognize the need for a safety net to protect our poorest and most vulnerable citizens. But, without vigilance, it is the nature of the welfare state to expand, addicting and enfeebling an ever greater portion of the populace, pushing the state closer to financial dissolution. An example of this is seen when the Detroit Public School System decided that all students, regardless of income would receive free breakfast, lunch and snacks, courtesy of the US Department of Agriculture's Community Eligibility Option Program. To feed the hungry is noble act, but to provide free meals to all students makes zero social and economic sense. It clearly constitutes a misallocation of limited resources that should be directed towards general school improvements or towards those who are unable to care for themselves. So, what could the motivation for this policy possibly be? According to Makr Schrupp, the Detroit Public School's Chief Operating Officer "one of the primary goals of this program is to eliminate the stigma that students feel when they get a free lunch..." So, now a student is entitled to have his well off neighbor fed at tax payer expense, so that they will not risk feeling stigmatized?!? The idea of fostering dependency and entitlement among students from self sufficient families defies common sense on so many levels. And although I draw no pleasure in having any human being feel shame for receiving public assistance, to entirely eliminate that stigma will prove to very costly to the public. Fear of stigma and sense of shame are strong social motivators, which for much of American history deterred a great many people from being too quick to turn to and remain on welfare. This provided a non-coercive, non-bureaucratic deterrent that moderated the use of the welfare state and encouraged self sufficiency. To intentionally eliminate it will result in a costly expansion of the entitlement state that we can scarcely afford during this deep economic downturn.

Hats Off To Howard Bloom!

Anyone who is interested in expanding their perspective on social, political and economic life must read The Lucifer Principle, written by the eclectic and insightful Howard Bloom. This citation rich work explores the evolutionary forces that have shaped social life for microbes, primates and humans alike. Not only does he demonstrates a staggering knowledge of history, biology and anthropology, but he creates a rich synthesis between these seemingly disparate fields. Mr. Bloom was one of founders of the International Paleopsychology Project, which gathers leading biologists, anthropologists, historians, etc.to explore the role of evolution in social and psychological life. And in my opinion, it ads much needed depth and understanding to the social sciences. Agree or disagree with his vision, you will be challenged.

Tim Geithner's Third World Mentality

In the 1970's 1980's third world despots would rant and rave whenever the IMF and other independent agencies would lower their credit rating and mandate austerity measures as a prerequisite to receiving more loans. Left wing intellectuals would decry "economic imperialism," failing to note that if the policies that the third world governments chose to pursue had resulted in economic growth, rather than spiralling debt and inflation, such loans would not be necessary. Treasury Secretary Geithner's rant against the S and P for downgrading our credit rating was eerily reminiscent of these third world losercrats. The most serious sign of a nation's decline is when its leaders and intellectuals abnegate personal responsibility and adopt a narrative of victims and victors.

Brief Reflections on Teaphobia

From my personal experience at an early Tea Party protest, I can affirm that it initially began as an independent, largely decentralized protests against destructive, bi-partisan fiscal policies. In fact, not one attendee that I conversed with had anything positive to say about the Republican Party. The general sentiment was that fiscally they were barely above the Democrats and had to be held accountable. But, over time, a large segment of the movement were co-opted by the hierarchy of the Republican Party and the independent factions have been substantially weakened. Proof of this is the elevation of Sarah Palin within the organization, who during her tenure as governor was in no way fiscally conservative. In other words, I am not happy with the direction the movement has gone and no longer would consider partaking in a protest.

But, what I find interesting was the intense hostility, the "Teaphobia" that the movement generated since day one among large segments of the media and academic elite. I personally witnessed former CNN Reporter Susan Rosesgen express extreme bias and hostility during her interview with attendees, for which she was fired for. MSNBC's Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow have incessantly reviled the protesters. Commentators have chosen to focus on the most extreme, unrepresentative fringe members to defame the entire movement, which is intellectually dishonest and misleading. 

I believe this is indicative that the protesters and social critics of the 1960's and their heirs, who have  assumed leadership roles throughout government, media, academia and (to a lesser extent) business institutions are now the keepers of the status quo. And they have grown even more intolerant than their predecessors to challenges to their vision. In their pompous minds, their leadership, their policies are infused with so much truth and moral worth than anyone who would challenge them must be retrogrades or racists. Tied in with this is a strong element of classism and elitism; comments posted on Huffington Post are filled with hateful rants against "rednecks," "hillbillies" and "white trash." Many of those who chant the mantra of respect for diverse cultures show no tolerance for diversity within their own culture and country. This does not surprise me, because history is filled with countless examples of "champions of freedom" quickly becoming more intolerant than the regime that they just deposed. The Bolsheviks opposed the use of the death penalty in Czarist Russia, at least until they had seized power. Islamists promoted free speech in the Shah's Iran, but after seizing the reigns of power they quickly clamped down on all dissent. Mr. Matthews, in no way am I comparing you to Khomeini, but a little more tolerance for dissent and challenges to your sacred cows would be in order, especially for a so called journalist.