My kids' Dad

The New Deal's broken promises

The recent headlines about massive layoffs, global economic downturn and how the trillions of dollars in bailouts and proposed bailouts are not considered enough by most economists. This leads one to wonder what the real solution is. But to get to the solution we must first look at the source of the problem.

Popular misconceptions point the finger at the personal greed of the wealthy or corporate America; some politicians claim the problem is a lack of government regulations and a few even claim that this is just proof of the failure of capitalism.

When we look at history we see the reality: the more an industry is regulated - the more likely its failure.

Examples:

Highly Regulated		Deregulated		Less regulated
Financial institutions		Telecom		Technology
Automobile manufacturing		Transportation		Entertainment
Cable companies		Postal services		Education
Oil companies				Publishing
Health care

A clinical analysis shows that the current crisis was spawned by regulatory zeal in the 1970's to force banks to loan money to those with poor credit. Under Clinton these regulations were put on steroids to ensure that loans were given to more lenders who were unqualified and indeed were not at all likely to be able to repay. This was done under the rubric of social justice so that everyone would get a home (remember we were all celebrating the wealth of this country?). As the Reverend Wright would say, 'our chickens came home to roost', as the government solution was to ignore the problem and find creative ways to repackage the loans. When some lawmakers tried to raise an alarm they were shouted down by the same politicians that were overseeing the system. Similar scapegoating will be found in the health-care and oil businesses.

We can trace this legacy of government intervention back to the New Deal (or perhaps as far back as Theodore Roosevelt). The New Deal was a loose collection of regulations aimed to reassure the public that the Federal government was doing everything possible to end the Great Depression and provide security. A notable product of the New Deal was Social Security which is now the poster child for government programs that resemble a 'Ponzi scheme' more than a 'trust fund'. We continue to look at programs from the 'War on Poverty' to the 'Highway Trust Fund' which have also failed to deliver on their noble promises.

So then what is the solution in general and specifically to today's malaise?

Generally the answer is to unregulate wherever possible. There are certainly some cases where regulation is appropriate but the strength of our system is in a legal system that protects businesses and individuals from illegal acts (theft, fraud, etc). Coincidentally the Cato Institute has been running an ad along these lines. The history of the US as the most successful entity in modern history due to economic freedom and liberty is proven. Modern history is also littered with stories of failures of competing systems like socialism and communism.

A specific solution that suits today's context of economic stagnation coupled with regressive fuel prices is to spur energy production through safeguards to businesses that want to pursue solutions. These solutions include oil exploration, natural gas exploration; nuclear power production; and various alternative fuel source development. The greatest investments would be in oil, gas, coal and nuclear power. The restrictions on exploration and development must be lifted with legal guarantees of indemnity from government interference for a suitably long period (such as 50 years) so that investors would have manageable risk levels and expectations for returns. These industries would reignite manufacturing and production systems throughout the U.S. as well as the dependent businesses such as transportation, distribution, and services that support these.

The other side of this coin is to reduce government spending at all levels of government. Data shows that government spending is approaching 40% of our Gross Domestic Product. This huge spending produces very little economic value but consumes vast amounts of the fruits of our labors. There are plenty of complex and contradictory models to prove almost any position but let's boil it down to a simple analogy. If you are broke the last think you would do is to suggest a spending spree to solve your problem. The government needs to back off and allow the economic engine that has worked for this nation for hundreds of years to do what it is good at - produce wealth. (Not all debt is bad - most of us have mortgage debt to help us finance a home, but when you are living in a home that is far too expensive for your earning potential you can expect an ignoble end. The same principle applies to businesses that require loans to start and grow but a bank would ordinarily only lend to those deemed to have a sound way to repay those loans.)

UPDATE: A new level of pork spending from the WSJ: (hat tip to Lynn Van Note)

"Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."

So said White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in November, and Democrats in Congress are certainly taking his advice to heart. The 647-page, $825 billion House legislation is being sold as an economic "stimulus," but now that Democrats have finally released the details we understand Rahm's point much better. This is a political wonder that manages to spend money on just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years.

Another nail in the coffin of freedom

Did you notice the biggest news item to not make the news?

Dutch parliamentarian and filmmaker, Geert Wilders, is being charged in Europe as a criminal for making a 15 minute film called "Fitna" which is mostly verses of the Koran and clips of Imams' harsh rhetoric.

Wilder's goal was to influence Muslims to expunge hate speech from their scriptures. People like Bill Maher and Sam Harris better watch themselves for criticizing religion. Or perhaps these laws only apply to critics of Islam.

On the other hand, today's news was filled with stories about the great things Obama wants to do. His most significant deed was to wisely affirm his intent to follow George Bush's policies towards Israel and Palestinians.

The wire services reported that 38 million Americans (12%) watched the inauguration, just short of the record Reagan set in 1981 of 42 million Americans (18%). I watched neither.

President	Date	Viewers	Population	Percent
Ronald Reagan	Tuesday, January 20, 1981	41,800,260	229,465,714	18%
Jimmy Carter	Thursday, January 20, 1977	34,127,090	220,239,425	15%
Richard Nixon	Monday, January 20, 1969	27,007,700	202,676,946	13%
Barack Obama	Tuesday, January 20, 2009	37,793,008	305,666,957	12%
Bill Clinton	Wednesday, January 20, 1993	29,721,041	257,782,608	12%
George W. Bush	Saturday, January 20, 2001	29,008,200	285,039,803	10%
Ronald Reagan	Sunday, January 20, 1985	25,053,886	257,782,608	10%
George H.W. Bush	Friday, January 20, 1989	23,316,325	246,819,230	9%
Bill Clinton	Monday, January 20, 1997	21,583,000	267,783,607	8%
George W. Bush	Thursday, January 20, 2005	15,536,652	295,560,549	5%

I created this table based on Nielsen estimates and Census Bureau statistics. The first TV broadcast inauguration was President Truman in 1949 and a US population of 149 million.

The ice caps are growing

We hear that now more than ever we need to combat global warming and the future administration is going to pour a lot of energy and money into it (as well as appointing a global warming fanatics as scientists in charge). A scientist would find this shocking since the science does not support this but any student of politics understands application of red herrings.

Our local meterologist Bill Steffen writes this:

I heard Matt Lauer say, “Next we’ll take a trip to the Arctic, where the ice is melting fast”. What followed some commercials was a story that said: “…the Arctic, where the climate is changing rapidly and not for the better.” The trouble with the above statements is that they’re not true. You can check the extent of Arctic ice at the University of Illinois Cryosphere website: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ You’ll find that the Arctic icecap reached a record (and we only have a 29-year record) low in 2007. The icecap has been growing at a fairly rapid rate since, gaining 7% in just the last year to bring it back to 2002 levels. Alaska is having one of their coldest years ever, and the ice is not “melting fast” it’s actually growing fast. Also, the Antarctic icecap reached a record maximum in 2007. The TV story also showed a graph of the loss of Arctic ice from 2005 to 2007.  Obviously, the story they wanted to tell was that the ice is “melting rapidly”  If they had included 2008, or done a graph from 2002 to 2008, or from 1989 to 2008, it would not have had the same dramatic effect as the graph that was shown.

USA Today has an article that attacks meterologists for espousing these views but if you read the comments you get a better picture.

I just read an excellent post by Andrew Freedman at Capitalweather.com about the puzzling disconnect between TV meteorologists and the climate science community. It's a balanced, reasoned assessment of what I've noticed is an unwillingness by weathercasters to embrace what the vast majority of climate scientists accept as a given.

Here was Bill Steffen's response (in 2006) to the USA Today piece:

I have been a TV meteorologist for over 32 years…my degree is from the Univ. of Wisconsin at Madison – double major, Physical Geography.

My observation is that TV meteorologists are more skeptical of two things…first the total emphasis on man/C02 to the almost total exclusion of anything else in this climate debate….and second the nightmarish scenarios that dominate media coverage and a very vocal part of academia. We are skeptical of these computer models, partly because we do deal with them on a daily basis and know their math and therefore their limitations…but we are also skeptical of some of the modelers who have a financial and political interest in policy decisions that would result from action taken in response to their alarm. TV meteorologists are not beholden to big oil/industry or to the government grants and far-left policies that drive many of the alarmists. We do think the Earth is warming…that there are a number of reasons for this. I think that TV meteorologists are in general more conservative/skeptical people. Conservatives tend to go into business and engineering, liberals to government and media, conservative meteorologists to broadcasting.

There is little talk about solar cycles (there are articles discussing the shrinking of the polar ice caps on Mars and the moons of Jupiter). There hasn’t been a decent volcano since Pinatubo in ’91…less volcanic dust means more solar radiation reaching the ground. Dozens of Arctic stations across the Dew Line in northern Canada (remember, to warn us if the Russians sent ICBMs over the Pole) were closed. Russia has also closed stations…that in a small way is going to upset the balance of ground stations that become the base for the computer models. Temperatures are only measured accurately over about 14% of the globe. Where these temperatures are measured most accurately (the U.S.), the warming is less pronounced. Over the oceans we rely on IR satellites. I can show you IR pictures from Lake Michigan that are 5 degrees off the actual surface temperature of the water. Methane is a five-times more potent greenhouse gas than CO2…but has no political consequences, so it’s hardly considered. There are MANY thermometer sites that were in cooler, rural – forested environments 50 years ago that are now sitting amid concrete and asphalt. These thermometers will be giving warmer readings now.

We as a group (and there are many of us) resent when the media announces that “no credible scientist denies that global warming is going to kill us all…etc, etc”. That is a total untruth and reporters who word their pieces that way are either ignorant or biased.

I can show you comments from Hansen back around 1990 when he said that he’d looked at every temperature and there was no warming going on…was he wrong then (and if so why should we trust him now)? The world worships Al Gore…heck, he’s got the hurricane rotating backwards on the poster for his movie! He has no meteorological training, yet he’s given instant credibility over PhDs.

If you look at the data for my town (Grand Rapids) there is hardly a difference between temperatures 100 years ago and now. We have had warmer late falls and winters of late…but we have also had FEWER 90-degree days in the last 10 years than at practically any time in the last century. Most people and animals would prefer a slightly warmer climate. We go to Florida on vacation, not Baffin Island! A longer growing season would be a positive, not a negative. The positive aspects of a small (and less than 2-degrees is small…we used to have palm trees growing in Grand Rapids) temperature rise are never discussed.

If these people really cared about the planet, they’d find a way to address the growing C02 problem coming out countries like China (40% of the growth in C02 is China!), India, Indonesia, Brazil, etc. It’s only the U.S. that has to shut down industry and drive weenie-mobiles.

Climatic variability is the natural norm and I remain unconvinced that man/C02 is a greater danger to me than mad dictators with nukes.

Bill Steffen
WOOD and WOTV4
Grand Rapids, MI

Which point of view is more convincing? And more importantly why would people give up so much liberty based on the word of those who are so blatantly political such as Al Gore or the folks at the U.N.'s IPCC?

Americans have spoken

With Obama getting about 8 million more votes than McCain we can all be proud that Americans handle the transition of power peacefully regardless of how passionate our differences. As a believer in the "wisdom of crowds" we'll see how this pans out.

Our security risks have now increased and the economic situation is worsening. The lobbyists are in long lines at the Democrats doors. The expectations upon the Obama administration are unrealistic (recently an Obama supported gleefully proclaimed that she no longer had to worry about putting gas in her car or paying the mortgage) and may tempt them to concoct foolish schemes like Lyndon Johnson or the Jimmy Carter administration.

Here is a fun site to analyze your political positions.

Is this the guy you really wanted?

Here are my results.

American Jews in Israel favor McCain

Recent exit polls of American Jews in Israel show that McCain is favored over Obama by 3 to 1. The results are skewed to religious Jews with a definite pattern of religious voters favoring McCain. While some might consider this unbalanced you would find that there is more support and concern for Israel among religious Jews than liberal or secular Jews. Liberal Jews tend not to visit Israel or spend much time there. At this summer's CAJE conference Joel Grishaver admitted that liberal Jewish programs at teaching love of Israel had failed over the last 30 years and that Jews coming out of these programs were indifferent towards Israel. He also stated that the best solution for this problem was simply for young Jews to visit Israel and visit as often as possible.

What kind of change are people going to get?

Barack Obama was trained as a lawyer so it can't be claimed he doesn't understand what he is saying.

In 2001 he was interviewed on a Chicago public radio station and said this:

But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you, it says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn't shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.

So Mr. Obama does not appreciate that the essence of our nation is the restraint of government so that we all can enjoy liberty. He sees a fundamental flaw in the Constitution in that it does not grant broad powers for the government to entitle people to various programs. He has not learned the age old history lesson that power corrupts when he argues in favor of regulations.

Some people see this as a way to 'bring social justice' but it should be viewed as a way of dismantling our government which has proven itself more than others over more than 200 years.

It has to concern you when Mr. Obama compares our government to the Nazis:

“...just to take a, sort of a realist perspective...there’s a lot of change going on outside of the Court, um, that, that judges essentially have to take judicial notice of. I mean you’ve got World War II, you’ve got uh, uh, uh, the doctrines of Nazism, that, that we are fighting against, that start looking uncomfortably similar to what we have going on, back here at home.”

This is what you get when some Ivy League kid with no experience is groomed for politics and has no clue how the world functions outside of some crazy theories he has adopted failed ideologies.

Has Obama disqualified himself?

This must be an unprecedented year for campaign and election fraud. With innovative registration and voting techniques, such as early voting, voting for the homeless (ID less) and unprecedented absentee voting without solid controls to prevent voter fraud we have come to a time when the legitimacy of our voting system must be questioned. Maybe we could learn a lesson from the Iraqis and institute purple dye for same day voting to at least ensure that each person only gets one vote.

Recent testimony has shown that ACORN is being directly used by the Obama campaign to support campaigning and that up to 30% of the 1.4 million registrations it obtained are in question.

In fact the Obama campaign staff in Ohio were caught with a number of its out of state people vote in Ohio and then request those vote be retracted since they were illegal. (These were law students how could they understand?)

And then there are the illegal campaign donations. The Obama campaign has set up an Internet based donation system that by design accepts money with out the most basic fraud checking in place. They turned off the fraud checking mechanisms and claim that they check for fraud at a later time (or perhaps only when they get caught). They are known to accept prepaid credit cards which can not be traced. (Perhaps they will take the money when they can figure out who it belongs to and donate it to some charitable organization like ACORN?) These are clear violations of campaign finance laws.

These actions are either willfully circumvented the law or show at least a gross negligence which the Obama campaign is responsible for. Any legitimate candidate would have been scrupulous to follow th law so that there would be no doubt about the validity of there votes. It is quite simple, Obama has allowed himself to be disqualified to be president by the recklessness of his campaign. Could you imagine the way he would run this country?

Why can't we get the answers?

Doug Ross reveals the two statements that Obama made on the Rashid Khalidi video tape:

Obama congratulates Khalidi for his work saying "Israel has no God-given right to occupy Palestine"

Obama congratulates Khalidi for his work saying there's been "genocide against the Palestinian people by Israelis."

From Iran Aggression to U.S. Recession: The Challenges Ahead

Just returned from the JPC event about the current threat landscape featuring Daniel Pipes, Mona Charen and Frank Gaffney and moderated by Michael Medved.

The key takeaways are:

• Recent Joe Biden comments in Tacoma, WA (about Obama facing a major challenge in the next 6 months if elected and the US populace would be very unhappy with his reaction) are in reference to an attack Israel may launch upon Iran in response to Iran's nuclear weapons program and how we would react if the U.S. shot down the Israeli strike force?

• Look to the U.K. as an example of implementation and acceptance of Sharia law (search Archbishop of Canterbury's statements). Islamic extremism is finding greater success through legal means of confrontation and through the defender's complacency and appeasement. (U.K. has the lost the will to defend its heritage and stand up for its principles.)

• Expect to see continued efforts in financial jjhad to transfer western assets (especially oil revenues) against our interests. The current economic turmoil reduces this cash flow and our efforts to gain energy independence will help us. (Drill, baby, drill, now more than ever!)

I had interesting conversations afterward and also picked up Jonathan Schanzer 's new book, Hamas vs. Fatah.

UPDATE:

Here is a link to the one hour video of this same event held earlier this month in Cleveland (Although David Horowitz and Clifford May present rather than Frank Gaffney).

I just came back from a session with Yossi Olmert (brother of Ehud Olmert) where he told us that the conventional countdown to Iran's nuclear weapons gave us until the year 2012, but that Israel's countdown is set for the advent of Iran having enough nuclear material to build a weapon which is only a few months away confirming the Biden statements.

Some other recollections about the JPC event:
Experts agreed that not only is the US State Department decidely Arabist, but that the CIA has also become antagonistic towards Israel and has actively thwarted the Bush administration in recent years.

Since the 1990's Israel has changed its mindset from one of obtaining victory in its struggles but to one of appeasement. The Iranian and Islamist position is one that is incapable of being appeased short of complete capitulation.

A Jewish Perspective

According to our sages, people we associate with can impact who we are. The Talmud (Sanhedrin 23a) advises judges and witnesses to make sure their colleagues are upstanding so as not to embarrass themselves by association. “...they would not sit at table without knowing their fellow diners."

This has become most obvious in this year's presidential election where Barack Obama has a cadre of affiliates and associations (social, political and financial) that should cause alarm with anyone who is concerned for Israel and Jewish welfare:

Samantha Power, Harvard Kennedy School of Government professor, who left her position at Harvard for a year after Senator Obama was elected to the Senate. She was referred to as one of his senior foreign policy advisers. One of her most irresponsible positions is that America send armed military forces, "a mammoth protection force" and an "external intervention", to impose a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.

Robert Malley is the Director of the Middle East/North Africa Program at the ICG and another of Obama's senior foreign policy advisers. Malley's propaganda has been fodder for Palestinians, Arab rejectionists, and anti-Israel activists across the world. Soros is a funder of the ICG through his Open Society Institute where he serves on its Board and on its Executive Committee. Other members of the Board include Zbigniew Brzezinski (whose anti-Israel credentials are impeccable) and Wesley Clark (who called US support for Israel during the Hezbollah War a "serious mistake"; who has flirted with anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Malley has co-authored a spate of anti-Israel propaganda with former Arafat advisor, Hussein Agha.

Zbigniew Brzezinski's (the key Obama foreign policy adviser) lack of concern for the safety and security of Israel is well known. Brzezinski was Jimmy Carter's ("Israel is an apartheid state") national security advisor. Brzezinski has been disseminating vitriol about Israel for three decades and recently publicly defended the Walt-Mearsheimer study which concluded that US policy towards Israel was the result of Jewish pressure and inconsistent with American interests. More recently Brzezinski called for the US to initiate dialogue with Hamas, described Israel's action in the Second Lebanon War as a killing campaign against civilian hostages.

Other senior foreign policy advisers include Susan Rice (came up with the great idea that Jimmy Carter should be the Middle East negotiator) and Anthony Lake.

Of course, speaking of Jimmy Carter dealing with Israel is just an embarrassment in the last few years as his anti Israel views have seen the light of day.

Then there is another associate, Rev. Jesse Jackson, who is worrisome to the Jewish community, aside from his past racist comments, he was recently quoted in France as saying: '[that Obama] would end decades of "Zionist control" if he became president.'

This has to be considered along with the decades long anti-Semitic environment of Obama's affiliations with Revs. Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan.

There is also his affiliation with Rashid and Mona Khalidi with their well known anti-Israel background.

Chicago Leftist activists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn are not just infamous for their domestic terrorist activities but their anti-Israel positions as well: "the Palestinians use terrorism against Israel; and Israel currently employs terror in the service of settlement and occupation; "A bombing in a café in Israel is terrorism, and an Israeli assault on a neighborhood in Gaza is terrorism.". Of course targeting innocent Israeli women and children is equated here with a military operation against armed militants. (I wonder if this is because Bill Ayers takes this personally?)

Then there was Khalid al-Mansour, principal adviser to Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal (the Saudi billionaire blamed 9/11 on America), “was raising money for” Obama’s expenses at Harvard Law School. This does make one wonder how this poor kid was able to put himself through Harvard after not getting any honors at Colombia.

Sure Obama has acquaintances that are above reproof. But his strong ties with these other people would make any sensible person concerned with Israel and Jewish interests alarmed. I am afraid that the current support of Obama from so many American Jews is due to their ignorance, intellectual laziness or plain disinterest in having to question their world view. Anyone who seriously has a concern for the Jewish people will see the danger in the people who are surrounding Obama and influencing his decisions.

UPDATE: Although there are quite a few more examples here are a few I should not have left out:

At the annual AIPAC Policy Conference, Sen. Obama spoke saying that Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel. The very next day, facing criticism from the Palestinian Authority and Arab nations, he flip-flopped. Sen. Obama said the future of Jerusalem would have to be negotiated by Israel and the Palestinians, calling his support for an undivided Jerusalem  a "poor phrasing" of words.

General Tony McPeak is another close advisor who has strong anti-Semitic views.

There is also a supposed retraction of the Khalid al-Mansour connection by Kevin Wardally, "a spokesman for Sutton's family," e-mailed to Ben Smith of Politico. Upon further investigation this retraction is not credible:

Newsmax contacted the Sutton family and they categorically denied Wardally's claims to Smith and the Politico.com. So there was no retraction of Sutton's original interview, during which he revealed that Khalid Al-Mansour was "raising money" for Obama and had asked Sutton to write a letter of recommendation for Obama to help him get accepted at Harvard Law School.

Rashid Khalidi is another controversial figure who is friends with Barack Obama and who has anti-Israel sentiments and a close connection with Bill Ayers. A Stanley Kurtz recently said in an interview by Hugh Hewitt:

...would most Americans who support Israel be upset that Obama is close to Rashid Khalidi? 

SK: Rashid Khalidi. They would be horrified, Hugh. They would be horrified. It would be like saying that the strongest advocate for the Palestinians and the greatest critic of Israel in the United States was close to Obama. And you know something? He is, and he was and he is. And so friends of Israel are rightly horrified by this.