Barack Obama has announced that he aims to prohibit natural resource extraction from a large part of the southwest. At the same time, he boasts that after seventy years of deficit spending the January unemployment rate of 9.7% proves that "stimulus" has stopped unemployment.
In a phone interview today, Mr. Obama announced that he aims to illegalize productive jobs and improve the economy through government spending and printing more money. "Jobs need not produce anything of value," Nancy Pelosi says. "Only reactionaries believe that work needs to produce something." Rather, according to Mr. Obama, "if we double the money supply, wealth will be doubled. With twice the number of dollars, we can afford to reduce output. The nation will become richer as we spend and go further into debt."
Tim Kaine, chair of the Democratic National Committee, agrees. "Progressives know that by borrowing, in the long term more money means greater wealth." Kaine said that he supports the Obama plan of mandating indebtedness of all Americans.
To implement the non-productive work policy, Mr. Obama is releasing an executive order. All productive work will be curtailed or eliminated. Future generations of Americans can choose from seven careers:
Mortgage lender
Real estate developer
School teacher
Investment banker
Trial attorney
Government bureaucrat
Drug and guidance counselor
All other forms of work will be eliminated. Americans will be required to borrow an unspecified sum each year. "Through the expansion of borrowing, all will become wealthy," according to Mr. Obama. "Anyone who tries to produce something will be subjected to IRS enforcement," he added.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Ultimate Narcissist: Obama Aims to Raise Your Fuel Prices, Build Monuments to Himself
Fox News reports that Barack Obama intends to turn millions of acres of pristine wild land into a national monument (h/t Glenda McGee). Three potential sites in 11 western states are under consideration. The article notes:
"the mostly public lands include Arizona deserts, California mountains, Montana prairies, New Mexico forests, Washington islands and the Great Basins of Nevada and Colorado -- totaling more than 13 million acres."
The practical effect of this law would be to prevent development, including obtaining coal, oil and natural gas. Fox writes:
"Presidential use of the Antiquities Act is highly controversial because the White House, with the stroke of a pen, can lock up thousands of square miles of federal lands used for timber, ranching, mining and energy development without local input or congressional approval. The Act is generally interpreted to commemorate or protect a specific historical landmark, not prohibit development or deprive local communities of jobs and tax revenues."
Perhaps Mr. Obama plans to build a park full of monuments to himself.
This will not be the first time that Democrats have used laws to break the law. Clinton turned 1.3 million acres in Utah into a national monument in order to forestall all development. Note that the Bush administration lacked the courage to overturn the Clinton designation.
Glenda McGee points out a broader context in which this administrative step would occur. UN Agenda 21 is a broad plan to limit development in rural areas and confine human habitation to cities. Congressman Maurice Hinchey, the Congressman from the 22nd Congressional District in New York, has proposed a park federalization plan that might lead to depopulation of New York's Hudson Valley.
Fox points out that the inhabitants of Nevada and Utah where the park is proposed could stage a political revolt. Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate Majority Leader, comes from Nevada. This could mean the end not only of Reid but also of Democratic control of both houses.
If so, let us hope that the GOP at last grows a pair of avocados. Maybe they can use the park land for this agricultural purpose, even if agriculture has been outlawed.
"the mostly public lands include Arizona deserts, California mountains, Montana prairies, New Mexico forests, Washington islands and the Great Basins of Nevada and Colorado -- totaling more than 13 million acres."
The practical effect of this law would be to prevent development, including obtaining coal, oil and natural gas. Fox writes:
"Presidential use of the Antiquities Act is highly controversial because the White House, with the stroke of a pen, can lock up thousands of square miles of federal lands used for timber, ranching, mining and energy development without local input or congressional approval. The Act is generally interpreted to commemorate or protect a specific historical landmark, not prohibit development or deprive local communities of jobs and tax revenues."
Perhaps Mr. Obama plans to build a park full of monuments to himself.
This will not be the first time that Democrats have used laws to break the law. Clinton turned 1.3 million acres in Utah into a national monument in order to forestall all development. Note that the Bush administration lacked the courage to overturn the Clinton designation.
Glenda McGee points out a broader context in which this administrative step would occur. UN Agenda 21 is a broad plan to limit development in rural areas and confine human habitation to cities. Congressman Maurice Hinchey, the Congressman from the 22nd Congressional District in New York, has proposed a park federalization plan that might lead to depopulation of New York's Hudson Valley.
Fox points out that the inhabitants of Nevada and Utah where the park is proposed could stage a political revolt. Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate Majority Leader, comes from Nevada. This could mean the end not only of Reid but also of Democratic control of both houses.
If so, let us hope that the GOP at last grows a pair of avocados. Maybe they can use the park land for this agricultural purpose, even if agriculture has been outlawed.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Joseph Andrew Stack's Austin Murder/Suicide
The Joseph Andrew Stack tragedy is revealed in his suicide letter. Stack had evidently suffered some kind of breakdown. Unfortunately, no one ushered him into a psychiatrist's office before it was too late. Apparently he killed one other person and injured about 13.
There are a host of ethical questions that surround tax resistance. Unfortunately, Stack cannot be called a tax resister because he had lost his rational mind before he flew his plane into the Austin IRS office.
I do not believe that all violence against the IRS is wrong. In order to be right violence must amount to self defense or defense of property. The IRS is a violent organization that is illegal and engaged in illegitimate theft. However, to be morally right the degree of violence must be appropriate and be targeted against the perpetrators of violence or theft. Indiscriminate violence is wrong, especially because Stack could not know whether the people he was attacking even supported whatever wrongs he felt he had suffered (his statement alludes to but does not make clear the wrong).
Would Kelo of Kelo v. New London have been morally wrong to fly an airplane into the US Supreme Court building? The Supreme Court is obliged to interpret the law, and has failed to do so, facilitating the theft of Kelo's property. It is a violent, illegitimate institution. Kelo is entitled to self defense. But gratuitous violence is still wrong. Four of the justices voted against the decision to permit stealing. Flying a plane into the Supreme Court building would have been likely to injure or kill people who did nothing wrong. So it would have been wrong.
Would Susette Kelo have been right to murder the leadership of the City of New London or the Supreme Court Justices who justified the stealing of her property? I do not think the answer is clear cut. I cannot say she would have been wrong.
In the case of Stack, there were mitigating factors. But he was wrong. At the same time, because we no longer live in a nation governed by law, but by the gratuitous violence of the Internal Revenue Service and the US Supreme Court, I no longer react to someone like Stack the way I did toward Timothy McVeigh.
I wonder if Stack is only the beginning.
There are a host of ethical questions that surround tax resistance. Unfortunately, Stack cannot be called a tax resister because he had lost his rational mind before he flew his plane into the Austin IRS office.
I do not believe that all violence against the IRS is wrong. In order to be right violence must amount to self defense or defense of property. The IRS is a violent organization that is illegal and engaged in illegitimate theft. However, to be morally right the degree of violence must be appropriate and be targeted against the perpetrators of violence or theft. Indiscriminate violence is wrong, especially because Stack could not know whether the people he was attacking even supported whatever wrongs he felt he had suffered (his statement alludes to but does not make clear the wrong).
Would Kelo of Kelo v. New London have been morally wrong to fly an airplane into the US Supreme Court building? The Supreme Court is obliged to interpret the law, and has failed to do so, facilitating the theft of Kelo's property. It is a violent, illegitimate institution. Kelo is entitled to self defense. But gratuitous violence is still wrong. Four of the justices voted against the decision to permit stealing. Flying a plane into the Supreme Court building would have been likely to injure or kill people who did nothing wrong. So it would have been wrong.
Would Susette Kelo have been right to murder the leadership of the City of New London or the Supreme Court Justices who justified the stealing of her property? I do not think the answer is clear cut. I cannot say she would have been wrong.
In the case of Stack, there were mitigating factors. But he was wrong. At the same time, because we no longer live in a nation governed by law, but by the gratuitous violence of the Internal Revenue Service and the US Supreme Court, I no longer react to someone like Stack the way I did toward Timothy McVeigh.
I wonder if Stack is only the beginning.
63.02% in CBS Poll Give Obama Overall "F"
CBS has a non-scientific report card type poll where you can grade President BO (h/t Contrairimairi). You can fill out President BO's report card here.
The Economy
A:2.23%
B:3.60%
C:5.22%
D:18.92%
F:70.03%
Foreign Policy
A:4.33%
B:3.55%
C:7.90%
D:22.78%
F:61.44%
Health Care
A:2.46%
B:2.71%
C:3.64%
D:9.84%
F:81.36%
Afghanistan
A:3.52%
B:13.24%
C:27.28%
D:24.64%
F:31.32%
Iraq
A:3.91%
B:9.81%
C:26.18%
D:24.49%
F:35.62%
Threat of Terrorism
A:3.48%
B:4.16%
C:7.52%
D:19.54%
F:65.29%
Energy and the Environment
A:3.22%
B:4.60%
C:12.31%
D:21.04%
F:58.83%
Social Issues
A:3.76%
B:4.69%
C:13.28%
D:21.06%
F:57.21%
Bipartisanship
A:3.48%
B:2.80%
C:4.28%
D:8.88%
F:80.56%
Obama's Overall Job as President
A:2.96%
B:3.72%
C:4.22%
D:26.08%
F:63.02%
The Economy
A:2.23%
B:3.60%
C:5.22%
D:18.92%
F:70.03%
Foreign Policy
A:4.33%
B:3.55%
C:7.90%
D:22.78%
F:61.44%
Health Care
A:2.46%
B:2.71%
C:3.64%
D:9.84%
F:81.36%
Afghanistan
A:3.52%
B:13.24%
C:27.28%
D:24.64%
F:31.32%
Iraq
A:3.91%
B:9.81%
C:26.18%
D:24.49%
F:35.62%
Threat of Terrorism
A:3.48%
B:4.16%
C:7.52%
D:19.54%
F:65.29%
Energy and the Environment
A:3.22%
B:4.60%
C:12.31%
D:21.04%
F:58.83%
Social Issues
A:3.76%
B:4.69%
C:13.28%
D:21.06%
F:57.21%
Bipartisanship
A:3.48%
B:2.80%
C:4.28%
D:8.88%
F:80.56%
Obama's Overall Job as President
A:2.96%
B:3.72%
C:4.22%
D:26.08%
F:63.02%
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
