Monthly Archives: February 2011

by Alex Fidel

First I forget to post about Freethought Radio coming back, then I forget to mention that I have a band… and I thought I was a champion of shameless self-promotion.

Anyway, I do what ever small amount I can to shift the entertainment biz away from economic indiscipline through my music. My band is called Obsequy (pronounced ob-si-kwee, meaning funeral …in English), and we are a jazz/fusion-influenced progressive metal band. And yes, my lyrics often concern the ideas of liberty and common sense and the follies of statism and groupthink. Now, I don’t consider my band as a vessel for evil capitalist propaganda, since I put the music first and lyrics second. I write the songs before I put lyrics to it, and I’m a pretty big fan of complex show-off type music, so I spend a lot of time coming up with complex riffs and solos before I even title the song.

The first EP we put out is called Thoughtcrime, and is out on CD Baby, iTunes, Amazon MP3, etc. A few of the songs have nothing to do with liberty, but those that do have some great one liners, such as “the blind follow the false messiah / that preaches hope and change,” referring to “The Messiah” Obama.

As of right now, I’m writing a concept album called Reason, which is based on Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand. The music part still comes first, I have just decided in advance what the lyrical material will consist of. Most of the songs will deal with reason and metaphysics and all the really trippy stuff, but there should be a few long songs with clear, concise arguments for liberty.

This does have an effect. At two different shows, we played one of the new songs from what will become Reason, and both times people came up to me after the show saying they liked the ideas of an Ayn Rand concept album, in fact, one guy bought Thoughtcrime specifically to support supporters of Ayn Rand (my tip to Barstools readers who are musicians: make at least one Ayn Rand song and make sure your audience knows it’s an Ayn Rand song).

I will keep you all updated on the status of Reason. I’m planning on demoing all the songs before we make any recording plans, so follow us on Facebook, where we post all of our music.

I gotta get out more. Also, Dear John Lofton: Eat a dick.

You may or may not know that Ayn Rand’s classic Atlas Shrugged is being made into a three party movie, with part one to be released this year. Reason has been covering it, and reviewed the initial screening here. I write to state my prediction that Atlas Shrugged the movie will do GIANT sales numbers at box offices worldwide. I base my prediction upon my perception of much of the rest of the world being hungry for freedom, beginning with personal security, private property rights, and the opportunity to engage in free enterprise that comes with it.

People such as Gary Johnson and Rand Paul, the Southern Avenger, and groups such as the Republican Liberty Caucus, are moving the Republican Party back towards its roots. It’ll take a while, and maybe it’ll never be an incarnation of Lysander Spooner (total badass alert), but it’ll be a great thing.

by Alex Fidel

Here is Frank Zappa’s Senate hearing regarding censorship of music in the 1980’s:

The Senator’s phrase “voluntary policing” almost makes me want to puke, and that the free enterprise system should make the artists “clean up their act.” “That’s hardly voluntary,” responds Zappa.

Watch all the parts, you’ll even hear from Al Gore! At the end, a female Senator tries to vilify Frank for making a profit off of his music.

by Alex Fidel

Rahm Emmanuel won the Chicago mayoral race by a slim margin above 50%. Nothin’ fishy there…

Which reminds me of the line from Zappa’s “Strictly Genteel”-
‘may the lord have mercy for the people of Chicago,
for the terrible food
these people must eat’

I’ll try and keep an eye out for what Mr. Doesn’t Let a Crisis Go to Waste is doing in Chicago, as [fairly] elected mayor.

(Side note: should I fear for my life for writing this article?)

Watch the video below, and read my comment after it.

[Update, I was duped. The video linked below is highly and unfairly edited. Thanks to loyal a DuelingBarstools reader for sending me this link explaining that in the edited video Obama was actually introducing American ministers to Medvedev, and when Medvedev introduced Obama to Russian dignitaries Obama was NOT rebuffed by anyone in that line, and in fact they offered their hand to him. I've debated pulling this post, but given that its original version will live on in Google cache (forever?), I'm leaving up with this update, which renders my scathing commentary moot. Please note.]

When you’re outright dissed you have two viable options. One, exude confidence in your inherent personal and positional superiority. Lift your shoulders, make steely your gaze, and pierce the disser’s soul with it. Circumstance depending, let slip from your cheeks the slightest of smirks and continue about your way. The second option is confrontation, which in my opinion Obama would have been justified to do. After the second Russian denied the President of the United States’ offered hand, Obama should have immediately confronted him as well as the first disser.

Obama: square your shoulders to the disser, give him an Eastwood-esque stare, demand Medvedev tell you the disser’s name, and call him on his conduct. Ask him – deadpan – why he does not shake hands. Now the ball is in the disser’s court. Said disser will either fold, sheepishly offering his hand (which Obama should deny and move on to the next person in line), or he’ll double down on his dis.

While lobbing a subtle dis at the President of the USA may provide a good story to tell your comrades over vodka, provoking an international incident with the United States without any apparent cause requires a higher directive (ie Putin or Medvedev), as well as serious stones. In that unlikely case – if the disser stands his ground – Obama would be wise to play the trump card that comes with the Presidency, and leave. As in, leave Russia. Take a page from the Marine Corp: improvise, adapt, and overcome. Announce to Medvedev you’ve decided to fly to Poland to visit the Katyn Massacre memorial. He’ll understand what you mean, the Poland based missile shield is back on, motherfucker.

Obama risks nothing by doing so. If Russian diplomats are willing to act with such impunity to the face of the American president, the President has little to no leverage over them. One may assume Russia intends to and will act in their best interests, and no amount of bargaining or concessions to Russian demands will change that. The appropriate response is for Obama to act in America’s best interest, which does not include accepting multiple disses from Russian cabinet underlings, then sitting at a bargaining table at which he stands to gain nothing and lose much.

Say what you want about Hillary Clinton, but she’ll badger-stalk Muslim misogynists to force the issue of a handshake, forcing them to offer mealy-mouthed explanations to the International press the next day.

Although I look awesome in a suit, I find them principally ridiculous and unnecessary. If we’re going to distinguish ourselves by manner of dress, I would prefer feathers. (Indians had the right idea, imo.) Watch UFC featherweight champion Jose Aldo (aka the scariest human to ever weigh 145lbs), who was born into abject poverty in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, buy his first suit. He finds them conceptually hilarious (especially the tight collar), and so do I. Enjoy. (Via MiddleEasy)

THIS:

Liberal icons New York Mayor Fiorella LaGuardia and President Franklin Roosevelt strongly supported industrial unions. But, both also opposed collective bargaining by public employees because public employees enjoy market advantages too easily exploited. President Roosevelt [Ed. note: That'd be FDR, not TR] once said, “The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted in the public service.” Former AFL-CIO President George Meany viewed government unions as unthinkable.

Private sector unions must respect their employer’s bottom line. Union leaders bargain for more benefits while at the same time recognizing that excesses will force the company to lay off employees or go bankrupt. Private sector unions bargain face to face with those who pay the bills. Private sector union members on strike lose their wages. Private sector management and owners have an incentive to resist unreasonable union demands, particularly in regard to pension and retiree health care. If private sector managers make unwise concessions impairing the long-term profitability of their company, it is reflected immediately in the value of the company.

Government unions are not confined by an employer’s bottom line. For public employees, the bottom line is the bottom of the taxpayers turned out pockets.

This article, too, and below graphic (source, regrettably, unknown as I can’t find the link I pulled it from. A thousand apologies):

Read it: “Yet for all its gimmicks, this budget leaves the country at decade’s end saddled with publicly held debt triple what Obama inherited.”

Found this article via Peter Suderman’s twitter feed.

Coffee is about to have less coffee in it, the Cuban government announced this month. It will now be adulterated with some as-yet-undetermined vegetable matter, stretching the country’s meager supply of joe a little further.

All Cubans are issued a single small packet of coffee every month, as part of the state ration system, the cornerstone of government economic control. The richest coffee grown on the island is roasted dark, labeled for export and sold for hard currency in dollar stores few Cubans can afford. The lesser stuff, a brown powder sold under the Hola brand name, is rationed out, and is the only coffee most Cubans ever taste. Now it will be diluted, perhaps with ground nuts, soybean leaves or, as rumor had it during my visit to Cuba last year, ground twigs.

Coffee is a good measure of Cuban identity, one of the few pleasures that was never taken away by the revolution. A hot, sweet jolt, it is not just a stimulant, but a vital drink that controls appetite on an island where meals are infrequent.

The coffee crisis encapsulates all that is wrong with Cuba: theft, hunger, black markets, bad food and a leader who cannot produce beans but says twig-sipping is patriotic. Yet the Cuban Revolution goes on after half a century, unchallenged internally, because it holds not just the police truncheon, but also the trust of some portion of the population. Supporters are a minority, but not a small one.

Taking away the coffee is part of a deeper trend, however — one more failure at a moment when the cost of stagnation, one-party rule and endlessly accumulating small insults are being recalculated worldwide. Burma’s generals must be nervous. Central Asian dictators are sniffing for smoke from Tahrir Square. And in Havana, the Cuban Revolution must know, deep in its old bones, that it is too weak to withstand a wave of popular unrest like that coursing through Egypt.

Today the Cuban economy is nonexistent or stagnant, the young are educated, broke and frustrated, and after 50 years of one-party rule, stealing and corruption have become aspects of everyday life. Sound familiar?

The Cuban state totters on the edge of bankruptcy. A million Cubans will be laid off, Havana says, but there are no jobs and business is effectively illegal. Soap, potatoes and peas have all been removed from the minimal rations that keep Cubans alive. Seventy percent of all food is imported. If the government goes broke, as seems increasingly likely, people will go hungry, and crime and corruption will increase. In such tense conditions, the bond between any given

And yet millions of American “progressives” lionize Castro’s Cuba, and the monsters who created it such as Che “butcher of la Cabana” Guevarra.

by Alex Fidel

A little late, as you might have missed the first episode, which was yesterday.

Anyways, my radio show Freethought Radio is back, at a new time of Wednesdays at 8PM-10PM PST, only on www.ksunradio.com

As always, we have the Dueling Barstools On-Air segment, where the publician-in-chief himself, El Dueling Barstool calls in and we discuss the issues of the day.

The special guest schedule is as follows:

Feb 23- Jimmy McMillan of the Rent Is Too Damn High Party
Mar 2- Tim Aymar, singer of Control Denied (last brainchild of the late Chuck Schuldiner) and Pharoah
Mar 9- Ken Schoolland, author of The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible: A Free Market Odyssey
Mar 16- Peter Schiff, CEO of Euro Pac/Ron Paul’s 2008 campaign economic advisor
Mar 23- Gary Johnson, former NM Gov and badass truth-teller

Working on getting Howard Kaylan (aka Eddie of Flo & Eddie), who is the vocalist for The Turtles, and was the vocalist for Flo & Eddie as well as Frank Zappa & The Mothers of Invention. Unfortunately Mark Volman (aka Flo of Flo & Eddie) didn’t want to, my guess is media shyness because they are still together performing with the Turtles. They were in The Mothers from 1970-72, starting out in 200 Motels all the way up till Chunga’s Revenge, The Fillmore East June 1971, and Just Another Band From L.A. before Zappa had his stage injury and they took a long hiatus and it would just be Frank Zappa, no Mothers.

Anyways, tune in to my show every Wednesday at 8PM PST!

I’m sure Michael Moore will be eager to tell the history of public sector unions in America. Lot’s of good graphs and commentary at the link:

The historical basis of unions revolved around workers receiving a reasonable share of a company’s profits. But that tenet is nonsensical when applied to public service. Governments don’t make profits; they simply assess taxes.

Click here to follow us.

by Alex Fidel

Jimmy McMillan at the New York Governor's race debate, 2010

The very vocal and eccentric founder of the Rent Is Too Damn High Party, Jimmy McMillan, joins KSUN’s own Freethought Radio this Wednesday, Feb. 23rd at 8PM PST.

Now to my surprise, he did not advocate rent controls. Usually people with little knowledge of economics with throw in the idea of rent/price controls, without knowing the unintended consequences of such policies. Maybe Jimmy is just ideologically all over the place. But let me explain as to why the rent is too damn high (fuck yes, that rhymes!).

I’m self-educated on economics. My mentors (who are probably dead) are Frederic Bastiat, Henry Hazlitt, F.A. Hayek, and Milton Friedman. Naturally, I think the crop of SSU economics professors are sub par, but then again, I can’t think of a single college besides George Mason University that aren’t shills for John Maynard Keynes.

Rent prices are meant to show the most productive use of that land, whether it be residential, commercial office space, or torn down to make a farm. Prices are there to make the risk of investment worthwhile. No one is going to invest in real estate if they aren’t going to get a return, although this principle was overturned thanks to Congress, Fannie, Freddie, and the Federal Reserve completely absolving all risk in the real estate market through regulations, diminishing lending standards, and artificially low interest rates, causing the housing bubble that precipitated in the 2008 recession (more on why the housing bubble was caused by the unintended consequences of government policy in our interview with Peter Schiff on March 16th).

The consequences of artificially lowering the price of rent leads to added fees, such as the ability to charge for use of the key, to various other regulate-and-evade cat and mouse games. The lack of financial reward to the landlords’ risk/investment leads to taking away the incentive to provide for basic upkeep; they therefore choose the renter who would accept the most meager accommodations.

There is a sad, yet tragically ironic, quiz put forth by some professor (someone who writes for the Mises Institute) as to whether his students could tell whether a picture of an apartment complex has either been bombed or subjected to rent controls. The similarity is stunning. That leads to the question, which is worse for a country- war, or the bad consequences of good intentions?

As we see in all areas of commerce with little government “help,” competition improves quality and lowers price. As small-businessman and former NM Governor Gary Johnson puts it- ‘best product, best service, lowest price.’

What people often don’t realize is that regulations are often supported by big businesses- they can bare the costs of meeting these requirements, while their competitors, both big & small, cannot. This ends up placing a huge burden on small businesses.

My mom once helped rebuild a burnt down building in exchange for a reserved apartment, where the rent was very low. Today, you would have to do a ton of meaningless paperwork and probably have to pay a fee to some government agency. These have very little effect on the quality of apartments; it only scares away entrepreneurs, causing shortages and raising prices.

A very prominent member of Congress (House or Senate I’m not sure) Jim McGovern left his position to go home and start an inn. However, the cost of meeting fire safety regulation requirements (which he argued had little to no effect on real fire safety, but were just lobbied to be passed by established businesses to keep out people like him) caused him to close up shop. He then returned to the Congress, and warned his fellow liberals about the dangers of over-regulation. While they have the best of intentions, their lack of economic knowledge and obligation to their special interest buddies have many perverse consequences.

The answer is not to get rid of lobbying so that regulations are “pure” and without steering from established businesses/labor unions, because the problem still lies in the absence of economics 101 in the minds of politicians. The answer is to get rid of regulations so that big business/labor never get a chance to get their hands on the direction of regulations in the first place. “Evil” Wal-Mart was in favor of ObamaCare, and now they’re trying to please the Obama administration with their selling of healthier foods as a quid pro-quo for not coming after their non-unionized labor practices. That’s not capitalism. Big businesses would not have to rely on their political connections and subsidies, but rather if they provide the “best product, best service, at the lowest price.” Anyone can emerge from there. Even today, with our heavily regulated, small-business crushing economic environment, boutique shops in all industries can survive, but unfortunately, as Bastiat’s principle of the unseen states, we cannot see all the businesses that haven’t formed because the regulatory framework is so burdensome, it is an ultimate protection of big businesses.

So, if you don’t like big business, support free markets. Now I’m not sure if Jimmy “Rent” McMillan would like to hear that or not… no, really. I don’t know where he stands, because he’s so out there, that he’s not very consistent and is a really tough character to talk to because he blathers on about nothing. But once you’re done, and you listen back to the conversation, it is definitely entertaining to listen to. Tune in this Wendesday at 8PM PST at www.ksunradio.com to hear the man himself. If only someone would tell him that the rent is too damn high because the government is too damn big… I tried, but he just keeps talking and talking and talking and talking…

by Alex Fidel

Frank Zappa has been the subject of government force for more than one occasion. In the 60’s, he was prosecuted by the San Fernando Valley police for producing a “pornographic” audio recording. In the 80’s he was brought to a Senate hearing by the unelected “Washington Wives,” namely Tipper Gore. They wanted to tax offensive music, force businesses to hide offensive music under the counter (similar to modern cigarette legislation), among other Soviet-style draconian free speech/commerce violations. You can find those hearings on YouTube, and a very creative track made out of the hearings by Frank Zappa himself, called “Porn Wars”, off of his album Meets the Mothers of Prevention, where he turns the politicians’ voices into pigs (rightly so).

Anyways, here’s a top 10 list of my favorite Zappa albums for all you DB readers to check out:

1. Just Another Band From L.A.

2. Studio Tan

3. Apostrophe (‘)

4. Weasels Ripped My Flesh

5. Hot Rats

6. Waka/Jawaka

7. The Man From Utopia

8. Sheik Yerbouti

9. Zappa in New York

10. Freak Out!

He has two movies, 200 Motels and Baby Snakes, which are the weirdest things I’ve ever seen. 200 Motels is has a very drug-induced feel to it. Baby Snakes has some very weird claymation, so I would refrain from viewing whilst under the influence.

Did I mention that Frank Zappa never did drugs?

I previously posted a video (taken by loyal DuelingBarstools reader and contributor Occimatic) of Vietnamese immigrant and Honolulu entrepreneur Ben Do discussing why he’s thankful to be in America, and why America is exceptional. Here’s Ben’s tragically beautiful and inspiring story of coming to America.

Interesting read here about why liberty hasn’t (yet) arrived in Kazakhstan, which the author describes as “a sprawling semi-nomadic wasteland the size of Argentina and with a population the size of Osaka.” The author cautions readers from “imagin[ing] that such a place will emerge any time soon as a vibrant democracy” calling such hope an “Alice in Wonderland fantasy.”

There’s some spirited blow-back in the comments, making for good reading, including this (note the bit in bold):

It’s not the geography that’s the issue – “an underpopulated semi nomadic wasteland with vast mineral resources” could equally well describe Canada or Australia. [Ed note: touché] The issues in Kazakhstan are basically ethnic and cultural. Kazakhs have hardly any tradition of statehood or government at all, not to speak of advanced liberal democracy. To the extent Kazakhstan has done a little better than it’s neighbors it is because the Kazakh elite were more likely to be “Sovietized” than their other Turkic/Tajik neighbors. While Soviet values were hardly Western values, most Kazakh elites have inherited the Russian desire to be accepted as “Europeans”.

By Reason. Enjoy:

This article about the Somalian “pirates” (via Instapundit) prompted me to expand on what I wrote last week about pirates and hyenas when I ranted about the idiocy of the war on drugs, again. I do so again below. I don’t mean to be repetitive, or bore my reader(s), but the bi-partisan consensus that prosecuting a war on (largely) American citizens for committing victimless crimes highlights how far from the tree of individual liberty much of the country has fallen. Now, on to pirates and hyenas.

The Somalians, and others, attacking ships off of the Horn of Africa are hyenas, not pirates. Hyenas scavenge by force, taking from industrious hunters before they’ve abandoned their kill to the rightfully patient vultures. Hyenas are simple thugs. By contrast, pirates begin as businesspeople whose trade has been marginalized or prohibited by the State, always to benefit controlling political interests.

Pirate violence is the unfortunate, but predictable, result of depriving businesspeople of courts to enforce contracts, and hanging liberty depriving warrants around the necks of individuals who reject the notion that government may prohibit previously legal products for which great demand remains (and with little to no punishment of the actual consumer of the product (see Sheen, Charlie)). Since prison (or worse) is already assured, pirates have great incentive to arm themselves and combat the State to the extent the State pursues them. Witness the increasingly militarized war on drugs, and the abject brutality of the Mexican drug cartels it has produced.

Now, I’d have zero sympathy for Pirates if government would be consistent about its moral crusades and, at least, retroactively poison the records of every known or admitted drug user with misdemeanor possession charges. But bacon will suck before that happens, notwithstanding that former Presidents Clinton and Bush, as well as the present commander in chief of the war on drugs (Obama), purchased, possessed, and consumed, illegal drugs. The drug war is about shooting the messenger, and it’s dumb.

I was raised to value experience and common sense over credentials (my father would never let my schooling get in the way of my education), so this quote by Ludwig von Mises resonates with me:

“Innovators and creative geniuses cannot be reared in schools. They are precisely the men who defy what the school has taught them.”

TOTUS is the Teleprompter of the United States (by the way, TOTUS has its own blog):

More than 400 amendments were filed Monday night. Among them were a proposal from Rep. Steve Womack, R-Ark., to eliminate funding for the president’s Teleprompter and one from Rep. Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas, to strip funding for the alteration, repair or improvement of the executive residence of the White House and instead divert that amount to deficit reduction.Womack told Fox News Tuesday afternoon that he pulled his amendment because he wasn’t able to get an estimate on how much it would save.”I think we made our point,” Womack said. “We’re asking people to do more with less. And I think the president ought to lead by example. He is already a very gifted speaker. And I think that’s one platform he could do without.”

Shikhia Dalmia for the win. Excerpts below:

Know thy enemy is an ancient principle of warfare. And if America had heeded it, it might have refrained from a full-scale “war” on terrorism whose price tag is touching $2 trillion. That’s because the Islamist enemy it is confronting is not some hyper-power capable of inflicting existential—or even grave—harm. It is, rather, a rag-tag band of peasants whose malevolent ambitions are far beyond the capacity of their shallow talent pool to deliver…

But this year marks the 10th anniversary of 9-11 and none of the horrible scenarios conjured then have materialized. Islamic terrorists have not flown more planes into buildings. They haven’t detonated “loose nukes” or dirty bombs. They haven’t released nerve gas into subway stations. They haven’t poisoned the water supply. They haven’t even strolled into one of America’s hundreds of malls or farmer’s markets and blown themselves up.

Maybe this is because enhanced post-9/11 security has made America invulnerable. Or maybe the Islamists never posed that a big threat to begin with….

[The] average Al Qaeda foot solider who is a semi-literate peasant with barely any experience of the world outside his province. According to Carle, at its height, Al Qaeda had maybe a couple of dozen individuals who could be regarded as officer material. Out of them, only a very small subset would even come close to fitting the bill for a trans-national terrorist. One big disadvantage inherent in the terrorist enterprise of course of course is that it expends its best people in every successful attack, something that is not conducive to building a deep bench of terrorist talent overtime…

Security hawks—just like climate change warriors—maintain that no expenditure is too big to deter another attack. [Cost-benefit be damned!] But that is utter foolishness. A country sacrifices lives when it ignores bigger threats to fight smaller ones.

Over 5,000 American soldiers have died in Afghanistan and Iraq without on balance saving any civilian lives. It is time to call off the “war” on terrorism. Al Qaeda is not worth it.

Here, excerpt below:

This $3.73 trillion budget does a Cee Lo Green (“Forget You,” as cleaned up for the Grammys) to the voter mandate in November to control spending. It leaves every hard decision to the new House Republican majority. And it ignores almost entirely the recommendations of Mr. Obama’s own deficit commission. No wonder the commission’s Democratic co-chairman, Erskine Bowles, said Monday that this budget goes “nowhere near where they will have to go to resolve our fiscal nightmare.” And he’s an ally.

How unserious is this budget? Although the White House trumpets $2.18 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade, those savings are so far off in the magical “out years” that you can barely see them from here. More than 95% of the savings would happen after Mr. Obama’s first term in the White House is over, and almost two-thirds of the promised deficit reduction would arrive after 2016. Pretending to cut deficits by pushing all real cuts into the future is Budget Flimflam 101.

From hard experience, we know that what matters are the cuts and reforms a White House is willing to make now. The Obama budget doesn’t cut a penny from the deficit in the last seven months of fiscal 2011. Over the next three years—through 2013—the spending reductions in this budget add up to a paltry $20 billion net, out of a projected $3.5 trillion deficit. That’s a 0.57% reduction in red ink and less than what the feds spend every two days.

As for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and other entitlements, which account for roughly 60% of federal expenditures, the proposed savings are close to zero. The President would allow these programs to continue on automatic pilot, meaning they nearly double to $2.7 trillion in 2021 from $1.4 trillion in 2010.

Every serious analyst agrees that the time to fix these retirement programs is before 75 million graying baby boomers start collecting the benefits and voting as beneficiaries rather than as net payers. Meanwhile, Medicaid spending would grow by 115% over the next decade thanks to that renowned deficit reducer, ObamaCare. [Ed. note: LOL]

HERE:

Lots of commentary around the Internet today regarding Obama’s proposed budget, which over the next decade will “add another $8 trillion dollars to the national debt, which this year will be the size of the American economy. Who says there’s no inflation? From my window the political class is costing more than ever.

Almost as newsworthy as the budget debacle was Andrew Sullivan pulling out his goatee over the budget, titling his post on the subject “Obama to Next Generation: Screw You Suckers” (and which caught the attention of Instapundit and Hot Air, among others no doubt.)

Powerline:

Obama’s game is transparent, isn’t it? He is playing a game of chicken. He puts forward a series of proposals that he knows are more or less insane; but he also believes that Republicans will come to his rescue. They, not being wholly irresponsible, will come up with plans to reform entitlements–like, for example, the Ryan Roadmap.

Don’t forget that Paul Ryan’s purportedly austere Roadmap doesn’t balance the budge until 2063. It’s not at all sufficient to right the economic ship. Yet contrasted to Obama’s budget Ryan’s Roadmap seems as wise and necessary as the Declaration of Independence. Were the founding fathers to rise from the grave they would rightly pistol whip every elected official in Washington.

Ultimately, some combination of those plans will be implemented because the alternative is the collapse, not just of the government of the United States, but of the country itself. But Obama thinks the GOP’s reforms will be unpopular, and he will be able to demagogue them, thus having his cake and eating it too. Is that leadership? Of course not. [Editor's note: It's politics of the worst order.] But it is the very essence of Barack Obama.

Finally, in brighter news, expert political tea leaf reader Arianna Huffington artfully dodged Bill Maher’s question of whether she’ll commit to vote for Obama in 2012. The rats are leaving the Obama-ship. Why? Because the most flattering thing Huffington could think of about Obama, when pressed, was to complement him on how he handled Egypt, saying that his remarks about the need for true democracy is “Obama at his best.”

I’ve been busy, but as far as I recall there was no “Mubarak, tear down this regime” moment, or anything resembling and informed, coherent, substantive response. Dear readers, it’s up to you to decide whether Egypt was “Obama at his best,” as Huffington believes. Personally, I find Victor Hanson more persuasive on the issue.

More VDH gold here.

We used to hang horse thieves, but things have changed:

An American jihadist who set up the terrorist training camp where the leader of the 2005 London suicide bombers learned how to manufacture explosives, has been quietly released after serving only four and a half years of a possible 70-year sentence, a Guardian investigation has learned.

The unreported sentencing of Mohammed Junaid Babar to “time served” because of what a New York judge described as “exceptional co-operation” that began even before his arrest has raised questions over whether Babar was a US informer at the time he was helping to train the ringleader of the 7 July tube and bus bombings.

Apparently he didn’t provide too much information to US or UK authorities while training the London terrorists because THEY FUCKING BLEW SHIT UP. Also, you’d think the US would know whether he was an informant at the time and there wouldn’t be questions about it now.

Read this excellent article denouncing the Patriot Act and its “craven” supporters. Posterity will largely forget the names of the politicians who supported the Patriot Act. Can you name as many civil war era proponents of slavery as you can abolitionists (e.g. Lysander Spooner, badass)? What side of history are you going to be on? Paul D. Perry for the win:

“I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism, of everything dear to the American character.” – Lt. Col. William Barret Travis, the Alamo, February 24, 1836A vote to extend the omnibus Patriot Act is an act of moral cowardice. The American character is about constitutional government, our rights under law, the very underpinning, the cornerstone of who we are. While there are parts of the act I do not disagree with, such as some of the intelligence-sharing provisions, the suspending of the 4th Amendment is a travesty and is something that a free people should not tolerate. …

Your property is now subject to warrantless search. In fact, no notice need be given if your premises is entered, according to Pat Act One. If you are placed under suspicion as a terrorist, even if you are questioned, under Patriot Act Two, which was passed by Congress as the public was distracted by the capture of Saddam Hussein, you are not able to notify anyone including your attorney, according to this act of Congress. As a matter of fact, you may be assassinated or imprisoned or tortured overseas with this act as a basis. None of these provisions are constitutional, but will any judge in this era have the courage to overturn them?

The effect of the Patriot act is that the already greatly eroded Fourth Amendment doesn’t protect any member of the American community if the federal government has placed you on a terrorist watch list.

When John Adams was president, we passed laws called the Alien and Sedition acts that in effect made it illegal to oppose or even say critical things about our government. It took the election of Thomas Jefferson to overturn most of those provisions. Why were they enacted ? Fear of our former allies, the French…

I imagine it’s a great source of pride for the French that they once inspired fear, rather than derision, in at least a portion of Americans.

Fear is the handmaiden of bad legislation and illegal government acts. Some who otherwise call themselves constitutionalists have stated that the Patriot Acts are about our very survival, and that we have to survive in order to have constitutional government. Well, just how far are the panderers of that nonsense willing to take that logic? …

The founding fathers would not recognize our craven representatives for the most part or the people who elect them…

Yup. Note the following:

Some mis-characterize a statement by President Jefferson, who stated that we have a living, breathing constitution, as an excuse for their mischief. Jefferson was speaking of our right to change the constitution by amendment. We have a lawful way to do that, but neither the Congress through a bill nor a propagandist have the right to reinterpret the very words or circumvent our founding document.

Now is the time for people to decide whether they have the moral courage to be free. There are enough laws on the books to deal with illegal aliens (which the 911 attackers were) and terrorism without succumbing to warrantless sneak and peak searches and even more grievous suspensions of many of our constitutional rights. If we are to kill the Republic, we should at least have the courage to do it by the lawful amendment process – an effort to which I will stand in firm opposition, but at least it would be a legal attempt.

You should add Dave Shellenberger’s website to your daily reads, and if you’re on Facebook add him. Dave’s writing, as well as his commentary on Facebook is a valuable form of self-education. For instance, here’s his comment on a WSJ article highlighting an egregious example of corruption in China:

China’s state ownership of industries ensures that corruption–the use of public office for private gain—will flourish. In fact, the state ownership is itself a form of corruption, since it is intended to benefit the Communist Party, and comes at the expense of the Chinese people. To limit corruption, the party would have to relinquish control by privatizing state assets. See James A. Dorn, “China Needs Real Capital Markets,” 8/7/01, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3933.

That’s pretty tight for Facebook, people. He also has a hell of a radio voice, so look closely for him on airwaves near you. Dave, you are hereby admitted to DuelingBarstools’ Magna Cum Blogroll. A bit about Dave below, including the awesome fact that he’s a falconeer.

Dave is a libertarian commentator. Libertarians believe in limited government, free markets, and individual liberty.

By background, Dave was a veteran securities attorney. He was a pioneer in investor rights, with his own law firm in Boston, Massachusetts, from 1989 through 1998. He represented victims of Wall Street’s fraud and abuse and advocated for regulators’ attention to the problems.

During this period, for several years, he also was an adjunct instructor in Business Law at Babson College in Wellesley, Massachusetts. He enjoyed teaching both undergraduate and MBA students at this well-respected school.

Dave next served as Chief of Licensing for the Massachusetts Securities Division, leading the national efforts to expose fraud in the day trading industry.

He then was Chief Counsel for the New York Region of NASD (now FINRA), which regulates the brokerage industry, heading enforcement for the region. Business Week called him a “no-nonsense regulator.” After that he worked as an in-house counsel and executive in the industry, leading the development of cutting-edge compliance systems.

After repeatedly making his mark as anti-fraud attorney, Dave determined to pursue his decades-long interest in professionally communicating the libertarian viewpoint. He has always been a friend of the underdog, and believes that the greatest threat to individuals throughout the world is government oppression.

Wise investors can simply avoid Wall Street, Dave observes, using no-load index funds. But citizens cannot avoid their countries’ governments. The relationship is involuntary, and, Dave believes, usually entails excessive taxation, unreasonable restrictions on freedom, overregulation, and the favoring of special interests.

Some conservatives sometimes claim that their own style is “compassionate.” Dave believes libertarianism is the truly compassionate political philosophy, leaving people free, unburdened by illegitimate government power.

Dave brings the same passion, and the same powers of skepticism, insight, and advocacy to his current mission that he brought to his legal work as a critic of Wall Street and regulators. He is conversant in politics, economics, law, and regulation. His other widespread interests include business, investing, science, the environment, animal welfare, psychology, and sociology.

by Alex Fidel

Gary Johnson placed 3rd in the CPAC 2011 straw poll. That may seem like the short end of the stick, but think of the little recognition Johnson got, and how little in advance he scored the speaking position. This just goes to show that people are ready for bold spending cuts, which Gary made sure to mention amounted to $1.5 TRILLION; a balanced budget tomorrow.

I’m glad Ron Paul won, I’d obviously support with full effort a Ron Paul 2012 campaign. But I have to think in real terms. I know it’s hard to say this, I’m just as big of a Ron Paul fan as all of you are, but Ron Paul is not immortal. He’s going to be around 77 in 2012, and has to lead for 8 years. I’m sure he’d rather live stress free with his family rather than the tremendous job of president. Gary Johnson is younger, an extremely fit athlete, and has held a similar position on the state level as governor of New Mexico. That’s just my 2 cents on why I think Ron Paul should not run for president again, even though I’d support him 110% if he did. Now, I’d love to see him really do a lot of significant spreading of the “brushfires of liberty” in the minds of men. R3VOLution of the mind is where it’s at. And even though Gov. Johnson isn’t as philosophical as Ron Paul, you know that he’d go further than just a balanced budget. He’s said time and time again that he supports ending the Fed, and it’s not like he’s 100% cost/benefit. In one of his State of the State speeches, he said “Man is superior to government, not the other way around.” Definitely a consistent belief in the philosophy of liberty, just he also prefers to take it from a business standpoint. It’s easier to sell vetoes to the public when it’s in terms of cost/benefit rather than just pure philosophical. That’ll beget the idea that government can do better with much less, which will lead to an increase in limited government philosophy throughout the nation. Gov. Johnson did shift public opinion on school choice in NM significantly.

If the 3rd place is an indication of anything, it is to not underestimate Gary Johnson one bit. He could’ve been down in the percentage ranks with Donald Trump for saying “legalize marijuana” at a conservative conference. Think about it… Johnson ‘12.

Twitter was abuzz yesterday / earlier today with the news that (via @MelissaTweets): “Allen west is asked about GOProud: He says he’s for liberty for all Americans.”

Now this today, from a summary of Allen West’s CPAC speech:

[West] said “liberal progressivism” has failed all over the world [ed note: true] and he devoted a sizable portion of his speech to social issues, emphasizing his opposition to… gay marriage.

I respect Col. Allen West. He’s an American badass through and through. But he’s dead wrong to insist, as social conservatives do, that the immutable force of government be leveraged to exclude gay couples from equal access to marital laws governing the equitable distribution of property on death & divorce. As a matter of government, that’s what marriage is. And I’d bet Col. West would be the first to tell you that love, faith, and a daily personal commitment, are what make him a faithful husband and father, not the marriage certificate he signed in lieu of executing a contract with his (then) fiance to opt into his state of domicile’s marital laws.

Could Col. West articulate to me the meaningful difference between 1960s era laws prohibiting interracial marriage and today’s laws prohibiting gay marriage? I don’t see a principle difference. If pressed, the best I could muster is a strict originalist Constitutional argument that the 14th Amendment was only intended to protect against racial discrimination by states against African Americans and thus protects no one else. Thus, the “right” to discriminate against homosexuals (as well as to discriminate against Chinese, Irish, and every other ethnicity but African Americans) is within the purview of state government by direct or representative vote. How do you like them apples?

Republican opposition to pure equal treatment of all members of the American community is chief among a long list of examples of Republicans conserving “values” inconsistent with individual liberty.

I sure wish Col. West would put his considerable gift for advocacy to use for individual liberty.

As an aside, I’m fine with originalism (interpreting the Constitution by a plain reading of its language as it would have been interpreted at the time it was adopted). If adhered to American citizens would necessarily play a more active role in government by advocating for and against amendments to the Constitution, since amendments would be the only method of significant societal change. I would prefer that because (a) it’s what the founders’ intended (that’s why there is an amendment process), (b) it works well at the state level (witness Texas’ 2009 constitutional amendment to better protect private property against eminent domain, and (c) relying on amendments, not courts, for “change” would limit the nefarious extent to which lawyers and the legal academy can manipulate the judicial system to benefit favored, controlling interests and political ideologies. The battle of advocacy should be played out by the people (such as the hot debate over California’s proposition 8 (legalizing gay marriage) – rather than by lawyers and judges in courtrooms (Roe v. Wade).

As the Constitution is currently interpreted, I submit that discrimination against homosexuals violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. What says you Col. West?

I like Ron Paul’s matter of fact speaking style. Enjoy.

Update: I’m watching Paul’s speech, and it’s awesome. For instance: “Foreign aid is poor people in rich countries giving money to rich people in poor countries.” Witness the (now spectacularly rich) Hosni Mubarak.