Nobel Prize: Once Again, the Hate Award

PFC Bradley Manning, the WikiLeaks leaker, has been nominated for a Nobel Prize. I thought the Nobel Prize committee hit bottom when the gave the prize to Yasser Arafat (terrorist and murderer of women and children), after his transparent ploy where he refused a peace deal that gave him everything imaginable, while claiming he wanted peace. Really, he wanted what every Palestinian wants, then and now...to drive the Jews into the sea.

The Nobel Prizes have awarded many offensive prizes, as in Jimmy Carter (currently holding the dual distinctions as the worst President of the United States and the worst ex President of the United States), Paul Krugman (a political operative dressed up as an economist), and Barack Obama, POTUS, with no discernible accomplishment in his lifetime other than getting elected POTUS. 

Well, as difficult as it may be to sink even lower, the prize committee has done it. Manning is a traitor, has endangered many loyal Americans and their surrogates, and is likely responsible for the deaths of many others. Certainly he compromised our security more than any other person since 9/11. Hating George Bush used to put nominees on the inside tract for awards, but since he left office I suppose the new criterion is hating the United States.                 

An Average Week For a Radical Administration

You have all read enough about the Obama administration's attack on religion, and their attempt (with MSM help) to twist the debate (distorting the right's position) from religious freedom to contraception. However, you may not know about he latest insanity from the left, a growing movement supported by the head of Obama's National Economic Council, Gene Sperling, for a Global Minimum Tax. I kid you not. They want all the industrial countries to agree to install a corporate tax of at least 30%.

Several years ago Ireland became the economic miracle of Europe by cutting taxes over 20 times and experiencing unprecedented growth as a result. Their legislature proposed taxing corporations doing business in Ireland at a new lower rate of 18%, and corporations doing exclusively offshore business at 13%. There were howls from every capital in Europe, claiming a two tier system would be predatory. They said corporations would leave the mainland and relocate on the Emerald Isle. They stomped their feel and said it was simply unfair! So, Ireland agreed, and decided to drop both rates to 13%. Never having imagined they would adopt the lower rate, Paris and Brussels were left red faced.

A similar argument is being used to support this Global Minimum Tax. It isn't "fair" they say to incentivize companies to relocate in a favorable tax environment. It is interesting that the anti trust enforcers in liberal economic regimes (like Obama's) claim to understand the idea that monopolies do not create much wealth, and they provide poorer products and services at higher prices than if they had competition. Of course when these anti trust zealots are dealing with the private sector, they see bogey men behind every rock. Microsoft was investigated for anti trust so many times in so many areas it would make your head spin, and by the time the adverse rulings came down, there was already a competitor beginning to eat their lunch, proving government action was (as usual) a solution in search of a problem. Microsoft's crown jewels, Windows OS and their browser, Internet Explorer, have been losing ground for years to iOS, Safari, Firefox, Google Chrome, Android, Linux and others. And guess what? The competitive process left the consumer with better products at cheaper prices. 

These same people however, seem to relish the idea of government monopolies. Given the power of the sovereign, government monopolies are very real. What would the effect of a Global Minimum Tax be? Why would the left even suggest it? Because they want a the power to tax without leaving the payer anywhere to go.

The left opposes school vouchers, which would create competition for the now monopolistic public school system. As a sop to the union Obama recently trashed the highly successful voucher program in DC, effectively telling poor children to drop dead. This is to protect the Teachers Union monopoly, Similarly, the left wants to monopolize where companies do business, insuring taxes are high across the board. They are afraid of those countries which would provide a healthy business environment. Competition demands companies/ people/ countries have to work and innovate to stay ahead, and knocking off the competition is easier than working to provide these things. Believe this. If you think western governments are fat and sloppy now, and this passes, you ain't seen nothing yet. It is a disaster waiting to happen.

A couple of months ago the Obama administration complied with US law (for a change, unlike immigration enforcement and other selective pursuits by the justice department) and because UNESCO recognized a Palestinian State, funding was withheld (United Nations Economic Scientific and Cultural Organization). The effect was great. Other UN organizations who might have followed suit stopped in their tracks, and even seemed to take a step back from their hard anti Israel pro Palestinian stand. So what does out State Department do after this rare success? Last week they recommended restoring funding to UNESCO. What is more astonishing is how many Jews think the left in general and the Obama administration in particular are not anti-semitic and anti Israel.

I have experienced and read about many destructive, radical administrations in American history. Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson come to mind. But the Obama administration is an order of magnitude more radical, and more destructive than even these. God help us if he is reelected. Given what he has already shown he is capable of, imagine this radical chic leader with no reason to disguise his intentions for fear of losing the next election.

Impossible Things

Alice did six impossible things before breakfast. The Obama administration seems to be trying to outdo her.

I will call the most recent attempt the Immaculate Payment. For those who haven't kept up with the administration outrages, it seems that Obamacare requires that Catholic institutions provide contraception in their employee health care policies, which is a violation of Catholic teachings and conscience. The first attempted "accommodation" by the administration was permission for the Catholic institutions to take a year beyond the intended initiation date to allow them time to prepare and make adjustments. How does one prepare for or make adjustments to a violation of conscience?

After an ocean of public outrage the administration's fall back position was that the institutions would not have to provide insurance covering contraception services, but the insurance companies that sold them health care would, and for free. Get it? Blue Cross would sell insurance to a Catholic hospital without contraception coverage, but would simultaneously give contraception coverage for free to the recipient of that health care. Now you get it... don't you?

In justifying the "need" for contraception coverage the administration falsely claimed the cost of such coverage ran up to $600 per year. Using that number, we are being told that insurance companies will provide $600 extra coverage for free. The part of the constitution that permits the feds to mandate such payments doesn't pop right out in my mind. Should this Obama fantasy occur, it would be a truly immaculate payment.

The debate is about government overreach, not contraception. Should government have the power to force religious based institutions to violate their conscience? Not only does the mandate require conventional contraception, but also the morning after pill and the week after pill. That sounds like abortion to me, in spite of the administration spokesman's bogus claims to the contrary. Also, the "settlement" fails under any interpretation for those Catholic institutions that self insure, like the archdiocese of Washington DC.

The good news is that the administration believes this is a political winner. They are so wrong it is laughable. They want to make it appear that Republicans are against birth control, rather than the real objection which is the government's attack on religious liberty. Those who comprehend the real issue almost uniformly oppose this unprecedented intrusion, and unlike the others, they are very passionate about their beliefs.

The bank mortgage settlement is another administration impossible thing. The banks were found guilty of robo-signing foreclosure documents. The law requires personal review by a bank employee to move foreclosure forward, and the banks had computers sign without review. They were guilty of a technical but real violation. A fine was the appropriate remedy, although you can count on one hand the people who were truly injured by it. Many people were put out of their homes, but the paperwork for 99% of them was correct. The fine for this injustice was 25 billion dollars. 5 billion will go to people forced out of their home (99% of whom would have suffered the same fate had the violation not occurred,) and the the balance will be used for mortgage adjustments for people who owe more than their house is worth.

What you see at work is the heavy had of government, designed not to help homeowners, but to score political points. In fact homeowners will be hurt. Banks will impose stricter requirements for mortgages, there will be higher costs to the lender and consumer, and a justifiable exit from any area  the government is involved in..aka..maneuvering for political advantage.

More impossible things to come.

Santorum for the Defense

Imagine being charged with multiple offenses... raping the environment, causing disease and famine, taking wealth from the poor in order to enrich a few (mostly the strong and well connected,) starting wars for profit, keeping the masses uneducated, and general disregard for anyone or anything that does not provide you with personal benefits. But unlike a  trial where the accused is innocent until proven guilty, these charges carry the assumption of guilt, and guilty until proved innocent not once, but repeatedly, and not proved in one way, but in multiple ways. At the trial the facts become secondary, because the prosecutor has no ethical boundaries, is willing to lie and distort whenever he deems it beneficial, and he has a huge microphone. Worse, if your defense team is able to overcome all of these hurdles, the jurors will be offered bribes to rule the opposite of what their charge dictates (aka wealth redistribution.) These are the challenges that the defense of capitalism, freedom and democracy face ever single day.

There are lots of people defending capitalism, but they are small in comparison to the number prosecuting it. Given the defenders conviction that the ends do not justify the means, and the truth will win the day, they limit themselves to facts, even ones that weaken their argument.  Add to that the media, the armed forces of the left, who give the prosecutors the largest possible forum and routinely swear to the fidelity of their lies.

The prosecutors of capitalism are given phony awards for imaginary accomplishments in order to make the nonsense they spew seem credible. Undeserved academic degrees, Nobel prizes and other such garbage are commonplace. See Paul Krugman, Al Gore and Barack Obama for details. And then the refrains like "Everyone agrees," "Almost all authorities agree," etc. are repeated ad naseum until a totally false premise becomes "common knowledge."

For these reasons this onslaught is never easy to defend. The question is, which Republican candidate is best qualified to do so? Is it Mitt Romney, who recently said he wants to link the minimum wage to inflation? FYI The minimum wage is a naked political ploy to garner votes for Democrats, who know themselves that it is job destroying, socially repressive, keeps the poor from training and bettering themselves, and is generally wealth destroying. Or maybe it is the Mitt who recently said that he would fix the safety net for the poor. Does he not know that the safety net is an economic prison from which few escape, and many caught in its' web become infected with a range of social pathologies? Does he know that the antidote for these social diseases is family, work and productivity instead of dependency and entitlement? Mitt might do a credible job defending collectivism, but he is the wrong man to defend capitalism.

What about Newt? He has been on the wrong side of capitalism too often to be comfortable, but still he is far better than Mitt. If he chooses to defend it, he would articulate the message better than most. The thing is we don't know when some whim will change his mind, or change the subject, leaving capitalism to be defined by the left.

Ron Paul is actually the best by far to defend capitalism. He understands it and is unapologetic about his passion for it. His problem is that he doesn't understand the national defense challanges of the 21st century, and that is the first job of government. This failure makes him almost unelectable (We can never say 100% unelectable after a community organizer with a 20 year mentoring relationship with an American hating, racist pastor, a terrorist friendship, and lifelong support for every radical cause, particularly the destruction of Israel, got elected President.)

So we are left with Rick Santorum. His economic plan betrays a lack of understanding for the proper role of government generally, and particularly when it comes to the economy. However, he has many of the right ideas as well, and he makes no apology for them. He does at least understand capitalism will save mankind from some of his own failings, he is honest about his beliefs and has been consistent in articulating them. He understands that traditional American values, Judeo Christian values, are what allows capitalism to flourish and defends our freedom. His compassion transcends political opportunism, and he knows that the President must help everyone, including political opponents, and even if help means denying them the laundry list of narcotics the welfare state has addicted them to.

I guess former Mayor Koch of New York was right. He said, ""If you agree with 80% of what I say, vote for me. If you agree with 100%, see a psychiatrist." Rick is my 80% candidate, and that's good enough...it will have to be.

Some Common Sense Please

There should be a central talking points unit for conservatives that puts out concise rationals for our positions, answers the lies or misleading statements by liberals, and answer questions by the public.

How often have you heard centrists or liberals (often disguised as independents or middle of the road voters) say they only wish congress would compromise. The President uses this "failure" by congress to justify his extra legal appointments and executive orders, as well as a basis for reelection. Someone should infuse some common sense to this.

When two ideas are diametrically opposite, when both suggest that the other will not only not gain the objective, but will rather drive us farther from it, then how is any imaginary compromise possible? It's as if we reach a crossroads, knowing our destination is either to the right or left, but because we can't agree on which way to go we proceed straight ahead, insuring that we will fail. If higher spending and taxes, a.k.a. a welfare state, is the best thing for the voters, then lower taxes and less redistribution would not only not help, but would be harmful. Of course we know that the tax and spend agenda is destructive, the collectivist mentality is worse, and if conservatives don't have the power to lower taxes and spending, preventing increases is the next best thing. This is not rocket science, but one might think it is given the conservative failure to clearly respond.

When Newt attacked Romney because of his wealth, Romney was given the perfect tool to amplify the message that wealth creation benefits everyone. It provides jobs, as well as lowering prices. Wealth for everyone expands when created (as he has done), and contracts when destroyed as the government routinely does. Instead he cowered in the corner, making up a list of excuses, until the public pressure to release his tax returns grew too great. I assume he had a poll number saying people would resent it. His advisers should take note. Most of the resentment of success comes from people whose votes he could never win. Others like those of us on the right not only have no problem with it, but celebrate it. The voters who could be affected are in that theoretical middle. Doesn't he see that if those voters really want to understand, he can win their votes with a common sense explanation about the nature of economic activity. His attempt to hide however, leaves the collectivist argument unchallenged, and a voter who doesn't understand the issue but could be swayed, will gravitate to the argument by the left, however idiotic.

I will repeat myself. Ronald Reagan taught us the principled is also the political. Newt....Mitt..try the truth. It works. 

Newt and Mitt

Ann Coulter eviscerated Newt Gingrich on the Mark Simone radio show Saturday morning, and everything she said was right. She even defended John King and his opening question in the debate about Newt's second wife's claims (talk about strange bedfellows.) There is an endless horizon above the territory where Newt can be criticized. With that being said, he has also done great things for the country and conservative causes.

Now there is no bigger fan of Ann than I. She has repeatedly pointed to liberal hypocrisy, failures, lies, distortions, and about everything else despicable that liberals do. And she does it with humor, facts and logic, presenting common sense and irrefutable evidence.

However, when she criticizes Newt while advocating for Romney, she leaves half the relevant facts in the file. Mitt is not conservative, or if he is we have no evidence pointing to it. The problem is knowing, really knowing Mitt. He has been on both sides of every issue, past and present. If you watch him closely you will see he is willing to go either way on the most trivial of issues. Politics drives him even more than Obama. Did you see the news clip of the CNN debate when he was asked if he would release his tax returns. He said, "I will check with advisers and"....then there were boos from the audience, and instead of finishing as he intended, that he would make the determination after checking, he switched gears and said "and I will release them." My point is the boos made him change. He has no core convictions, and since everything he says is tailored to what he thinks will garner the most votes, we can't determine what he believes or for that matter how much he really knows.

His claim to "understanding how an economy works" rings hollow in the light of his economic plan. The sign of a genius is to make a complicated thing simple. Unfortunately, his plan has 59 points. But the single most frightening part is that he raises taxes on the rich. His explanation is that the middle class have been hurt in recent years and the rich can afford more taxes. The rich create most of the wealth in the economy, and that creates most of the jobs. His plan is Democratic light, and would undermine wealth creation and job creation. Does he not understand this, or is he "only" pandering?  His defense of his totally failed (by every metric) health care plan in Mass. seems to indicate he just doesn't get it. It is as if he is saying, "Government is the answer if we just do it differently than the Democrats."

The question voters must ask themselves, is who is most likely to pursue conservative principles. Santorum actually meets that qualification more than Newt or Mitt. However, he too has a few economic blind spots. He relies too much on the government, and thinks government sponsored rewards and penalties will promote prosperity. He believes that manufacturing, the primary beneficiary of his reward/ tax system, is key to economic success.He is wrong, but that's for another day.

Mitt and Newt could both learn a lot from the Gipper. Anyone who watched Ronald Reagan should know that the principled is also the political. Reagan was eviscerated by the pundits, press and even moderate Republicans every time he made his point in "bold colors, not pastels," but within days the positive public response silenced the critics and made him even more loved and respected than he had been before.

History and Knowing

A poll was released recently showing that 60% of Americans believe socialism is either acceptable or preferable to capitalism. Of course we know this is absurd, but it is what is being taught in our schools, many churches and synagogues, and most of the media. Then again, there is nothing new there.

I recently asked one of my money managers with a law degree from Yale and an MBA from University of Chicago what he knew about American economic history. I was shocked to find out he knew almost nothing apart from a few isolated theories on the depression, mostly liberal mythology. He drew a complete blank when I mentioned the Harding/ Coolidge administration, arguably a better example of the greatness of supply side success and the magic of the free market than even the Reagan years. More shocking is the fact that economic history is not a required course at University of Chicago (it is available as an elective) or any other school I could find. I know of no subject one can truly "master" without knowing it's history. Is it any wonder we have so many liberal, political ignoramuses on Wall Street?

Economic freedom is an absolute necessity for political freedom. Compassion with real help for the poor, and the environment are served infinitely better through capitalism than anything else. At at time when collectivist theories were new there was a basis for reasonable debate about these things. But history in the US and throughout the world has made clear so over and over again that collectivist ideas are antithetical to freedom and prosperity. Any well meaning rational person, informed about US and world economic history, could not help but embrace capitalism.

Many years ago Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand and Bill Buckley argued that economic interference by the government (aka socialism/ collectivism) retarded economic and individual lifestyle growth. It destroyed freedoms guaranteed in the US constitution, and that collectivism would be left "on the trash heap of history." They had mounds of historical evidence to support their arguments. Today we have another 60 years of the exact same patterns of the success of capitalism and the failure of socialism repeating itself. Nothing has changed. Attempts to hide and distort the record seem to have made historical and socialist falsehoods into accepted truths for some, but the record points to the folly of every single Keynes, Krugman and Obama idea. That is why it is so important that history, particularly economic history, be taught, not just to MBA candidates, but to everyone.