SmallGovTimes.com

I prefer local to global

Alan Caruba — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 21:35:13 +0000

Perhaps it is just the product of the times in which I grew up and my experience with the events of the world. Or perhaps it is the spin that has been added to the word “global”, endowing it with an almost spiritual quality.

Mostly, though, I think it is my utter disgust with “global warming”, having spent the better part of three decades striving to defeat this plot to enable all forms of governmental intrusion into people’s lives and choices.

A bit of personal history; as a child I recall riding the train to and from the Jersey shore when it was filled with young men in uniform, all destined to fight in far-off places whose names even then seemed exotic to me; Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal, Normandy, and Sicily. It was the harsh geography of war, but to a youngster it only meant someplace far away.

By the time I was a teenager, an older brother was already in Japan at the headquarters from which the Korean conflict was conducted. There were new names to deal with, Seoul, Incheon, and the Yalu River. By then the Cold War was well on its way.

The 1950s were full of talk of A-bombs and then H-bombs, and then intercontinental missiles. In college I took scant notice of events in Cuba, but a few years later I would be in full combat gear waiting for orders to invade. Then the problem went away without ever really going away. It has since spread to Venezuela.

Like many Americans, I learned about the world because we were sending troops somewhere to push back against some form of aggression or some new oppressive regime. At home the streets were filled with Civil Rights marchers or anti-war marchers, both of whom would be replaced by new groups demanding to be heard. It was the era of Woodstock and Watergate.

And no trains filled with soldiers because the military had ceased to be every young man’s duty to serve their nation. It became a voluntary military and, we’re told, one that is superior to the former model. It would suffer casualties in Beirut, wrest Grenada from a communist takeover, invade Panama to remove yet another corrupt leader and then, in response to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, go there to set things right. After 9/11, in 2001 it would drive the Taliban and al Qaeda out of Afghanistan and then in 2003 invade Iraq to bring down Saddam Hussein.

Is it any wonder Americans are weary of war? Is it any wonder that the word “global” to my generation means some new place where young, dedicated Americans are battling some new despot, regime, or threat to peace anywhere and everywhere?

All of which brings me to the new meaning of “global” for the generations that followed mine. It is attached to “global warming”, the greatest hoax, not merely in the modern era, but in all of history! And it was initiated and implemented by an international institution that was supposed to end wars, the United Nations.

Some years ago, the UN published a book called “Our Global Neighborhood”, but we do not live in a global neighborhood. We live in our own, local neighborhood. The UN is all about global government with, of course, global taxes, a global army, and, as in the case of every dictatorship, a global restriction on gun ownership.

It is all about a vast matrix of global treaties that involve the surrender of some element of U.S. sovereignty to the UN to oversee “heritage” sites and our national parks. It is about an educational indoctrination program to turn American children into “citizens of the world.”

So you will have to forgive me if I look at the world and see places where Americans have continually had to sacrifice blood and treasure because someone or some nation had ambitions to impose their will on people who just wanted to be left alone.

If something terrible happens in America I do not expect to see one single other nation on Earth come to our aid.

In America today, the enemy is not always in some far-off place. It is in Washington, D.C. where an out-of-control Congress is spending and borrowing to the point where we are being warned that our dollar is at risk of being worthless. Led by a feckless new president, it has imposed huge debts on generations yet to be born.

The White House is trying to expand an “entitlement” program, Medicare that is already broke for the purpose of controlling one sixth of the nation’s economy.

The White House is giving money to banks and then threatening to tax them after they have repaid it.

The White House has bought General Motors and Chrysler instead of letting them go through a bankruptcy process like any other business.

The White House is squandering billions on “clean energy” and “green jobs”, both of which are mere fantasies while billions of barrels of oil go untapped, billions of cubic feet of natural gas remains unavailable, and hundreds of year’s worth of coal is not mined.

Congress is engaged in phony, multi-billion dollar “stimulus” programs instead of cutting taxes to jump-start the economy.

“Think globally. Act locally” is the mantra of the environmental movement, but the movement itself is a global monster, determined to decide what you can eat, how you should deal with your garbage, what kind of car or truck you can drive, how much you should heat or cool your home.

It is despotism, no matter what other name you call it.

And then there are those insane followers of Islam who want to inflict more harm on America because they are not content with killing their fellow Muslims.

I wish I could ignore the world beyond my neighborhood, but it won’t let me.

Obama admits health care overhaul may die on Hill

News Bites — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 04:28:44 +0000

WASHINGTON – No, maybe he can’t. President Barack Obama, who insisted he would succeed where other presidents had failed to fix the nation’s health care system, now concedes the effort may die in Congress.

The president’s newly conflicting signals could frustrate Democratic lawmakers who are hungry for guidance from the White House as they try to salvage the effort to extend coverage to millions of uninsured Americans and hold down spiraling medical costs. Obama’s comments Thursday night came hours after Republican Scott Brown was sworn in to replace the late Edward M. Kennedy, leaving Democrats without their filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and Obama’s signature health legislation with no clear path forward.

“I think it’s very important for us to have a methodical, open process over the next several weeks, and then let’s go ahead and make a decision,” Obama said at a Democratic National Committee fundraiser.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100205/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul

US Jan jobless rate falls to 9.7%; payrolls -20K

News Bites — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 19:47:19 +0000

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)–The U.S. unemployment rate unexpectedly declined in January, but the economy continued to shed jobs and revisions painted a bleaker picture for 2009, casting doubt over the labor market’s strength.

The unemployment rate, calculated using a household survey, fell to 9.7% last month from an unrevised 10% in December, the Labor Department said Friday. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires had forecast the jobless rate would edge higher to 10.1%.

Meantime, nonfarm payrolls fell by 20,000 compared with a revised 150,000 drop decline in December. Economists had expected payrolls to be flat. The December figure was revised down sharply from an originally reported 85,000 drop.

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=201002050845dowjonesdjonline000354&title=data-snapus-jan-jobless-rate-falls-to-97-payrolls–20k

McCain feeling primary heat from his right flank

News Bites — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 21:22:32 +0000

Arizona Sen. John McCain, the Republicans’ standard-bearer in 2008, is facing a surprisingly strong primary challenge from the right, evidence that even party leaders aren’t safe from the swell of conservative activism heading into the 2010 midterm elections.

Mr. McCain hasn’t faced a serious challenge since joining the U.S. Senate in 1987. But seven months ahead of the primary, he is using tough-guy tactics and calling in conservative chits to fend off J.D. Hayworth, an ex-congressman and radio host. Mr. Hayworth, who lost his House seat in 2006 and who is best known in Arizona for his opposition to illegal immigration, has seized the Tea Party mantel of low taxes and small government.

With the senator’s approval, McCain allies filed complaints with the Federal Election Commission and the Federal Communications Commission essentially alleging that Mr. Hayworth’s three-hour radio show—during which he regularly attacked Mr. McCain—was a form of campaign advertising. In January, Mr. Hayworth and the station agreed to drop his program. Smokey Rivers, Phoenix director of programming and operations for KFYI’s owner, San Antonio-based Clear Channel Communications Inc., said Mr. McCain wasn’t a factor.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704343104575033181531964738.html

Sarah Palin endorses the other Dr. Paul

News Bites — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:26:04 +0000

The line between the Ron Paul movement, the Tea Party and the Sarah Palin phenomenon continue to blur. Yesterday, the former Alaska governor endorsed Rand Paul in the Kentucky Senate race. Dr. Paul, an eye surgeon, is the son of Texas congressman Ron Paul, an ob/gyn who ran for president as a Libertarian and again in 2008 as a Republican.

“It’s time to shake up the status quo in Washington and stand up for commonsense ideas,” Palin said in a statement.

The younger Paul is a clear Tea Party favorite in the contest. The pit bull with lipstick is also a Tea Party favorite.

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/02/sarah-palin-endorses-the-other.html

Vulnerable Dems seek distance from Obama

News Bites — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:23:07 +0000

As Congress begins picking through President Obama’s vast election year budget, many Democratic incumbents and candidates seem to be finding something they love — to campaign against.

A Democratic Senate candidate in Missouri denounced the budget’s sky-high deficit. A Florida Democrat whose district includes the Kennedy Space Center hit the roof over NASA budget cuts. And an endangered Senate Democrat denounced proposed cuts in farm subsidies.

A headline on the 2010 campaign website of Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), blares her opposition to Obama’s farm budget: “Blanche stands up for Arkansas farm families,” it says.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/michael-jackson/sc-dc-obama-dems04-20100203,0,987524.story

South of the border, the cult of the presidency

Gene Healy — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:20:15 +0000

You could almost hear a collective groan go up when Barack Obama announced that he planned to deal with his recent setbacks by “speaking directly to the American people.” After 158 interviews and 411 speeches in 2009, who’s clamoring to hear more from a president whose microphone addiction rivals Bill Clinton’s?

If you think we’ve got it bad, pity the Venezuelans, whose strongman president, Hugo Chavez, rules the airwaves with his own talk show. “Hello, President!” airs Sundays, sometimes for up to eight hours, and it features Chavez singing, insulting his enemies, giving shout-outs to Fidel Castro, and even, on one occasion, describing a gut-wrenching bout of diarrhea he’d had while filming the show.

Ironically, though, when Latin American autocrats blame the region’s problems on Yankee influence, they may be more right than they know.

From afar, the Chavez regime seems like something from a comic dystopian novel. But it’s no laughing matter.

Last week, Chavez ordered six TV stations off the air, ostensibly for refusing to air his frequent and interminable speeches. His real motive was to squelch dissent amid raging inflation, rolling blackouts, and growing public disgust with his lawless rule. So far, two students have died in anti-censorship protests.

Undaunted, the combative caudillo declared that Twitter criticism of the president “is terrorism,” and the protesters are “seeking death.”

Chavez is only the most recent example of our southern neighbors’ long-running problem with authoritarian presidents who decry U.S. “imperialism” as they push for increasingly imperial powers.

Ironically, though, when Latin American autocrats blame the region’s problems on Yankee influence, they may be more right than they know.

When the region’s former Spanish and Portuguese colonies gained independence in the early 19th century, they followed the U.S. example by adopting presidential systems. Instead of copying the British parliamentary system, where the chief executive is elected by, and accountable to, a legislative majority, they opted for the American model, with an independent executive who’s harder to remove, and can invoke his electoral “mandate” to pose as the living embodiment of the popular will.

In an influential 1990 article, “The Perils of Presidentialism,” political scientist Juan Linz argued that presidential systems are especially bad for developing countries, because they encourage cults of personality and foster instability. Subsequent studies have bolstered Linz’s insights, showing that presidential systems are more prone to corruption and far more likely to suffer catastrophic breakdowns than parliamentary ones.

Presidentialism’s perils are apparent throughout Latin America today, where populist despots invoke “democracy” in the service of one-man rule.

In recent years, Bolivia’s Evo Morales, leader of the “Movement for Socialism” (acronym “MAS,” for “more”) forced constitutional changes that overturned a ban on his re-election and enhanced state control of the economy. Ecuador’s Rafael Correa, a Chavez ally, frequently breaks into prime-time programming with Big Brother-style attacks on his opponents. Correa too has overturned presidential term limits and gained the power to dissolve the legislature.

Yet the American president retains staggering powers at home and abroad. He can send the world’s most powerful military into battle at will, Congress’ power “to declare war” notwithstanding; and he can reshape vast areas of American life unilaterally via executive order.

That’s not to suggest that we ought to hold a constitutional convention and replace our presidential system with a parliamentary one. American-style separation of powers has its advantages, after all.

Without it, for example, there’s little doubt we’d have had socialized medicine long ago. Yale’s Ted Marmor, a leading historian of the U.S. health care system, argues that the main reason we don’t is that our Constitution’s framers rejected a parliamentary regime in which “electoral victories typically produce policy majorities.”

But we should remain vigilant about the peculiar dangers of our system. The narcissistic despots who plague our southern neighbors offer a cautionary tale for those willing to cede still more power to populist presidents.

The lesson for all of us, north and south of the border, is watch our presidents closely, and check them when they try to slip their constitutional bonds.

Spending our way to stagnation

Daniel J. Mitchell — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:17:16 +0000

Many governments have responded to the economic downturn by increasing the size of the public sector. It was remarkable how quickly they resuscitated the theory that assumes more government spending can boost economic growth.

Popularized by John Maynard Keynes in the 1930s, the theory is based on the notion that government can “prime the pump” by spending money, which then begins to circulate through the economy. Keynesian theory sounds good but it overlooks the fact that, in the real world, government can’t inject money into the economy without first taking money out of the economy.

Any money that the government puts in the economy’s right pocket must be borrowed, which means the money comes out of the economy’s left pocket. Keynesianism doesn’t boost national income, it merely redistributes it.

The Obama Administration claimed that spending more money would keep the unemployment rate below 8% in the United States, yet it climbed to 10%. The United Kingdom and Canada also suffered continued stagnation after adopting so-called stimulus packages. Ironically, statist nations such as France and Germany that resisted the siren song of Keynesianism better weathered the global economic storm.

The recent trend toward bigger government is particularly worrisome because most nations have oversized public sectors. Government spending in industrialized nations now consumes, on average, nearly 45% of GDP with Canada and the United States slightly below average. Australia, Switzerland, South Korea, and Slovakia are the only nations where the public sector claims less than 40% of economic output.

The bad news is that most government spending today is devoted to programs for what is known as transfer spending and consumption spending.

To put these numbers in context, government spending in the industrialized world consumed about 30% of economic output in the mid-1960s, less than 20% of GDP between the First and Second World Wars and only about 10% of GDP during the golden century between the end of the Napoleonic wars and the First World War.

While many factors influence economic performance, the negative impact of government spending is one reason why small-government jurisdictions such as Hong Kong (where the burden of the public sector is below 20% of GDP) have higher growth rates than nations that have medium-sized government, such as Canada and the United States. The same principle explains in part why big-government countries such as France often suffer from economic stagnation.

Interestingly, a large body of academic work attempts to measure the growth-optimizing level of government. This research is based on the notion there is not much prosperity in a state of anarchy. Governments solve this problem by imposing the rule of law (courts, police protection, etc). Those governmental functions cost money, but they yield big benefits. Moreover, government spending on “public goods” such as basic infrastructure also can facilitate the functioning of a market economy.

That’s the good news. The bad news is that most government spending today is devoted to programs for what is known as transfer spending and consumption spending. These outlays dampen economic growth, according to the research, largely because they displace private sector activity and also require punitive tax rates. Most studies using current economic data show that economic performance is maximized when the public sector is less than 20% of GDP. And if historical data is used, the evidence suggests that government should be even smaller.

Ironically, John Maynard Keynes might not be a Keynesian if he was alive today. He certainly would not be a proponent of big government. In correspondence with another British economist, he agreed with the premise of “25% [of GDP] as the maximum tolerable proportion of taxation.”

Canada and the United States are already far above that level and the burden of government in both nations will climb above 50% of GDP in the future in the absence of real reform. Unfortunately, there is no way to have a European-size welfare state without also enduring European-style economic stagnation.

Rep. Conyers aids CAIR in plot against FBI

Jim Kouri — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 01:35:05 +0000

An Islamic group and one of its top contacts within the U.S. Congress are in the midst of a plot to neutralize FBI counterterrorism efforts. And they’ve found a willing collaborator in Attorney General Eric Holder.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) applauded the news that the Attorney General Eric Holder and his Justice Department Civil Rights Division will review the shooting death of a Detroit imam, Luqman Ameen Abdullah, by FBI agents on October 28 in Dearborn.
House Judiciary Chairman Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) announced the Justice Department review at a news conference yesterday in Detroit sponsored by CAIR’s Michigan chapter (CAIR-MI) and attended by a coalition of civil rights groups.

The news conference was scheduled following the release of autopsy results showing that Imam Luqman Ameen Abdullah was shot at least 20 times, including once in the back, as well as being found handcuffed in the prone position. However, there was no mention that Abdullah’s leader is serving a life sentence in prison for killing one cop and wounding another.

CAIR and other groups had called for an independent investigation of the shooting. On January 13, 2010, Rep. Conyers sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder to request that the civil rights division investigate both the October shooting and whether the FBI violated the Constitution by using informants in mosques.

“I’m not surprised that Congressman Conyers would side with his big campaign contributors in defending radical killers and terrorists,” said former NYPD detective and military intelligence officer Mike Snopes.

“And they have the perfect prosecutor in Attorney General [Eric Holder] who’s law firm often defends terrorist thugs,” he added.
“We welcome the decision to open a civil rights investigation of the imam’s death and thank Representative Conyers for his leadership in ensuring that all the facts in this troubling case come out,” said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad.

The Investigative Project on Terrorism’s Steven Emerson has noted in several studies the questionable associations and actions by many of CAIR’s leaders that cast serious doubt on its claims of moderation and restraint. Some have committed criminal acts themselves; others have ties to organizations with connections to Islamic extremism.

Those convicted of direct criminal activity include Ghassan Elashi, a founding board member of CAIR-Texas; Randall (Ismail) Royer, once a communications specialist for the national group, and Bassam Khafagi, the organization’s one-time director of community relations, according to Emerson.

The Radical Islamist’s Shootout with FBI

According to a report for The Examiner, agents working on a counterterrorism task force in Detroit, Michigan reported that during a gun battle they shot and killed the Imam of a radical Islamic group. Agents say the gunfight began after Luqman Ameen Abdullah refused to surrender and face various criminal charges.

Abdullah is the spiritual leader of a group that is alleged to have engaged in violent activity over a period of many years, and known to be armed. According to the report obtained by the National Association of Chiefs of Police, the FBI was in the midst of arresting Abdullah and 10 of his followers on charges that included conspiracy to sell stolen goods and illegal possession and sale of firearms.

According to a preliminary report obtained by NACOP, Abdullah was killed while exchanging gunfire with Federal Bureau of Investigation agents on Wednesday at a warehouse in Dearborn, a suburb of Detroit.

Abdullah was the leader of part of an group of Islamists who call themselves Ummah (“the brotherhood”), a group of mostly African-American converts to Islam that seeks to establish a separate Sharia-law governed state within the United States.

The Ummah is ruled by Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin, formerly known as H. Rap Brown, a 1960s radical and Black Panther who is serving a life sentence for the murder of a police officer in Georgia.

As detailed in the affidavit in support of the criminal complaint that was unsealed, Abdullah has espoused the use of violence against law enforcement, and has trained members of his group in use of firearms and martial arts in anticipation of some type of action against the government. Abdullah and other members of this group were known to carry firearms and other weapons.

According to the FBI Abdullah is also known as Christopher Thomas.

The FBI report states that Abdullah regularly preached anti-government rhetoric, and that some of his followers converted to Islam while in prison.

In 2000, Sheriff’s deputies Ricky Kinchen and Aldranon English went to (H. Rap Brown’s) al-Amin’s home to serve an arrest warrant for failing to appear in court on a traffic citation of speeding and impersonating a police officer. al-Amin opened fire with a .223 rifle and English was hit four times. Kinchen was shot with the rifle and a 9mm handgun.

The following day, Kinchen died of his wounds in a Georgia hospital. English survived his wounds and identified al-Amin as the shooter from six photos he was shown while recovering in the hospital.

Taxpayers pay $101,000 for Pelosi’s in-flight ‘food, booze’

News Bites — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 23:54:03 +0000

It reads like a dream order for a wild frat party: Maker’s Mark whiskey, Courvoisier cognac, Johnny Walker Red scotch, Grey Goose vodka, E&J brandy, Bailey’s Irish Crème, Bacardi Light rum, Jim Beam whiskey, Beefeater gin, Dewars scotch, Bombay Sapphire gin, Jack Daniels whiskey … and Corona beer.

But that single receipt makes up just part of the more than $101,000 taxpayers paid for “in-flight services” – including food and liquor, for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s trips on Air Force jets over the last two years. That’s almost $1,000 per week.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=123472

SmallGovTimes.com

I prefer local to global

Other articles that you may enjoy

Obama admits health care overhaul may die on Hill

Other articles that you may enjoy

US Jan jobless rate falls to 9.7%; payrolls -20K

Other articles that you may enjoy

McCain feeling primary heat from his right flank

Other articles that you may enjoy

Sarah Palin endorses the other Dr. Paul

Other articles that you may enjoy

Vulnerable Dems seek distance from Obama

Other articles that you may enjoy

South of the border, the cult of the presidency

Other articles that you may enjoy

Spending our way to stagnation

Other articles that you may enjoy

Rep. Conyers aids CAIR in plot against FBI

Other articles that you may enjoy

Taxpayers pay $101,000 for Pelosi’s in-flight ‘food, booze’

Other articles that you may enjoy