Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Rand Paul is a Racist?

by Humphrey Stevenson

Ever since Tea Party favorite, Dr. Rand Paul, laid waste to the establishment Republican candidate, Trey Grayson, in the Kentucky Senatorial primary, the media has been looking for an avenue of attack against Dr. Paul in order to render him irrelevant. They think they see an avenue in Rand Paul’s statements regarding the 1964 Civil Rights Act, specifically how the Act empowers the Federal government to regulate private businesses.

In an appearance on MSNBC, Dr. Paul was asked by Rachel Maddow if he thought a private business should have the right to refuse service to African-Americans. To which, Paul replied “yes.” This was a “gotcha” question by a second-rate host on a viewer less network.

To refuse to serve a person based on the color of their skin is a bad business decision but freedom requires the right to make a bad business decision. That is what Rand Paul tried to explain to Rachel Maddow. She, however, could not see past her “gotcha” charge of racism to understand this.

A restaurant is not a public establishment, like a public library or a courthouse, because it is not owned by the public. It may be open to the public but it is someone’s private property, like your living room. So it’s not a question of racism; it’s a question of private property rights. If you have no say in who you will allow on your property but the government tells you, then who really owns the property?

The Jim Crow laws of the old South prevented businesses from serving black people the same as whites. This was an overstep by the state or local governments in that it told private businesses who they could not serve. So it was correct to abolish the Jim Crow laws but not to replace them with another overstep, this time by the Federal government, in the opposite direction. Abolish the Jim Crow laws and free the businesses to serve who they will.

Freedom does not mean that only the good people are free. The bigot is free to be a bigot. Do you have any recourse if you have a bigot owning a restaurant and refusing to serve minorities? Certainly you do. You can refuse to frequent his establishment. You can encourage your family and friends to not frequent it. You can picket the establishment; write letters to the editor of the local paper; take out ads publicizing the fact; write blogs; call the local TV news. Do anything you can to get the word out that this restaurant will not serve minorities. If he will not change, then let the owner live with the consequences of his decision. Does it matter if a bigot owns a restaurant if no one eats there?

You don’t kill flies with a sledgehammer. So you don’t use the sledgehammer of the Federal government to deal with a bigot restaurateur. The Federal government will necessarily stomp all over the private property rights of every business owner in this town or any other town, regardless of whether the other business owners are good, bad or indifferent. It has to in order to deal with the bigot restaurateur. Not every problem in our society can or should be solved by some government action. More times than not the government “solution” does more harm than good.

Much of the reason for the attacks on Rand Paul is to attack the Tea Party movement itself. The Left calls Rand Paul a racist for the same reason they use the term “Tea-baggers.” It’s just a label. The Left fears the Tea Parties and whatever they fear, they attack. They fear the movement for what it represents; a groundswell of conservative political thought, deeply held Christian values and reverence for the Founders.

Further, there is a reason that the attacks on Dr. Paul center on a charge of racism. They must continue to portray the conservative ascendency as racist, because there is a truth the Left does not wish to have discovered. Many black Americans are starting to see the light; that decades of use by the Democrat party has left them little more than … used. There are 32 black candidates for congress running as Republicans this year, most of these from southern states; the largest number since reconstruction. This is not characteristic of a racist party and the ideas of Rand Paul are not the ideas of a racist.

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Freedom of Speech is Good; or Not

by Humphrey Stevenson

Our Founding Fathers guaranteed in the First Amendment our God given right of freedom of speech. They did this because a person is not truly free if he is not free to express his views. The left, who like to think of themselves as the most tolerant among us, seem to not be quite so tolerant of speech they find does not fall in line with their political views.

In a speech at Hampton University, President Obama bemoaned devices such as iPod, iPad and X-Box as diversions. He suggested that these type devices provide 24/7 access to arguments that Obama said “don’t always rank all that high on the truth meter.” In addition, he decried the blogs and talk radio as “putting new pressures on our country and on our democracy.” Notice that Obama specifically points to the new media (blogs and talk radio), where much of the content is conservative in nature. How are these media outlets “putting new pressures” on our country? They may be putting new pressures on his administration in that people now have a choice in where they obtain their information and don’t have to settle for the liberal spin offered by the old media.

This view does not seem to correlate with what President Obama said just a few months ago. On November 16, 2009, while speaking to and taking questions from a group of Chinese students, Obama said that information should be free. The President said that he was “a big believer in openness when it comes to the flow of information,” adding that “vocal criticism of his polices had made him a better leader.” So it seems that the Chinese should access information from any source they wish but the same does not hold true for Americans.

President Obama’s regulatory czar Cass Sunstein wrote a paper in 2008 in which he openly called for banning conspiracy theories. One theory Sunstein would like to ban is the idea that global warming is a “deliberate fraud.” His ideas included outright banning of conspiracy theorizing, taxing the activity (monetarily or otherwise) and infiltrating “extremist” groups. Can you say Tea Parties? He also suggested that right wing websites should include links to opposing views and vice versa. According to Sunstein this could be done either voluntarily or by force.

In a report from the President’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships under Section C – Environment and Climate Change this is the very first recommendation: “Recommendation 1: Form an Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and assign Faith- and Community-Based Liaisons to EPA regional offices.”

In the report, the reason for recommendation is described, “Houses of worship can exert a powerful influence when they practice good energy stewardship and preaches and teaches about conservation as a moral value, it has a powerful influence.” This means that at least Obama’s Advisory Council wants global warming theory preached from America’s pulpits. I don’t have a problem if a pastor feels led to teach conservation in his church, but this is a government agency pushing pastors to teach a particular political agenda. Hopefully, America’s pastors are too busy preaching the Word of God to push Obama’s agenda.

We have an agency of the Federal Government “partnering” with churches. Is this like Federal Government partnering with GM where Obama picks the CEO? Maybe it’s like the Federal Government partnering with Freddy and Fanny and controls the vast majority of home mortgages.

Where is the left squawking about separation of church and state? Remember the left’s endless attacks on Sarah Palin because she was a church going Christian. I remember the hissy-fit the left threw when George W. Bush first announced his “faith-based initiatives.” Even I had a queasy feeling in the pit of my stomach. But here the administration is planning to “partner” with churches and is admittedly going to influence the teachings of the church and the silence from the left is deafening. I guess this sacred separation of church and state only works one way.

It leaves one wondering why try limiting speech they don’t like and encourage speech they do, all in direct violation of the Constitution. Why not just defeat the ideas on their merits? This is not the actions of a President of the United States but the actions of a leader in some third world dictatorship. I remember when the American tanks rolled into Bagdad and seeing those huge murals of Saddam Hussein. Is that next for us?

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Grecian Formula Makes My Hair Hurt

by Humphrey Stevenson

My hair may be going gray but if it’s all the same I think I’ll forgo any Grecian Formula hair treatments and just let it happen because it is thought that hair colorants can make it become thinner and I would prefer to keep the hair I have, even if it does become gray. The US Federal Government, on the other hand, has been on the Grecian formula for the better part of the last 100 years but now the treatment have greatly increased. For the sake of our fiscal sanity (if not our hair), our leaders need to look at Greece and see where that formula ultimately leads.

We have all seen the images of the riots in the streets of Athens. Three people were tragically killed when the rioters burned a bank. The violence centers on the fact that these rioters see their free ride coming to an end because the government can no longer afford to provide it. In actuality, they never could afford it. If these rioters cared about their country they would accept the situation as necessary. But just like a junkie, they will do anything for another fix; easy money instead of drugs.

During the angry demonstrations, the rioters shouted, “War against the capitalists” and “No more sacrifices.” Many of the rioters were civil-service employees who obviously do not understand a fundamental truth; without the private sector (those hated capitalists), the public sector could not exist.

Facing a crippling debt that has reached about 125% of GDP, the Greek government passed an austerity package. After many years of continuous pay increases for public sector employees, the package calls for pay freezes, pay cuts and lay-offs. In addition, many generous bonuses will be capped or eliminated altogether. Reductions in the pension plan include an increase in the retirement age, increase the service time requirement to become fully vested, and lowering of pension benefits. The value added tax (VAT) will increase from 21 to 23%. Taxes on fuel, alcohol and tobacco will see a 10% rise. There is also a plan to crack down on tax evasion. In the future, the government looks to reducing the economy’s reliance on the public sector with the possible privatization of some industries.

Rather than to let Greece solve its own problem or become another shining example of why socialism doesn’t work, the European Union and the International Monetary Fund have come up with an ingenious idea; solve Greece’s debt problem with … more debt. A cool $1 trillion has been pledged to bailout Greece and other EU member nations on the brink of bankruptcy. Just like our bailout plan, the Greek bailout plan is doomed to failure, because it does not address the underlying problem. It simply delays the inevitable. A day of reckoning will come.

Just like Greece, the US is facing a debt bomb of its own. According to an article in Investors Business Daily, US treasury bonds could lose their AAA rating in 2017 or 2018 as the cost to service the debt reaches above 18% of federal revenue. Under more adverse conditions, that tipping point could be reached as early as 2013. Some economists see the federal debt reaching 90% of GDP in 2020, when it stood at 53% of GDP at the end of 2009.

Much of Americas debt problem is the same as that of Greece; the entitlement mentality. The people of Greece, most of who work (if you want to call it that) in the public sector, have been conditioned to believe that they are owed ever increasing wages, pensions and benefits. Politicians have pandered to them for their support. It doesn’t matter a whit to the recipient that the economy of their country can’t possibly sustain that level of benefits; they are entitled to it. Once they are told that their benefits may have to be reduced or eliminated, their frustration boils over in rage.

The situation Greece is dealing with is the same situation that destroyed the Soviet Union and will destroy any other socialist nation. Margaret Thatcher summed it up better than anyone else I ever heard on the subject, “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” Lady Thatcher’s profound statement of fact is also a warning, especially for the United States. Get off the Grecian formula and get off it fast. The Grecian formula is socialism; the solution is capitalism.

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

No Crying Over Spilled Oil

by Humphrey Stevenson

On April 20, an oil platform operated by British Petroleum named Deepwater Horizon exploded and collapsed in over 5,000 feet of water in the Gulf of Mexico killing eleven oil workers and resulting in a massive crude oil spill. We’ve all heard the legend of the emperor Nero fiddling while Rome burned. What was the Obama administration doing while the Gulf of Mexico was turning into the La Brea Tar Pits?

President Obama claimed, “We’ve made preparations from day one to stage equipment for a worst case scenario.” If true, then why did he sit on his hands for over a week as crude oil gushed into the Gulf of Mexico? At that point, Obama dispatched an Interior Department “SWAT Team” to inspect oil rigs. I didn’t even know the Interior Department had SWAT Teams. According to US Department of the Interior web site the purposes of the department is to, “…manage and sustain America’s lands, water, wildlife, and energy resources, honors our nation’s responsibilities to tribal nations…” We’re not talking about the FBI or the CIA. In the words of Chief Roy Mobey from the late 1970’s sitcom “Carter Country,” “What’s to swat?”

Ben Raines of the Mobile Press-Register says that a plan was already in place and pre-approved to deal with an event like the Deepwater Horizon accident and had been since 1994. Under the plan, the government would immediately deploy fire booms capable of containing and burning off over 75,000 gallons of oil per hour. This would have been enough to contain the spill dozens of miles offshore. The problem was that when the accident occurred the government did not have a single fire boom on hand. They had to purchase the only one available from a supplier in Illinois and then requested the supplier to call customers in other countries to see if the US could borrow their fire booms. By the time it could be deployed, some nine days after the accident, the winds had shifted to the south and it could not be used due to the soot from the burn being blown onshore.

The Washington Examiner quotes a former oil spill cleanup manger for NOAA, Ron Gouget, who agreed that the proper materials were not in place to deal with the spill but also says the reason not to burn immediately may have been a political. The burn would create a great deal of soot. However, Gouget claimed that had they started to burn immediately 90% of the oil could have been contained.

President Obama seems to have a two-fold plan to deal with the disaster. One, have Attorney General Eric Holder dispatch an army of lawyers to the Gulf to monitor the spill and two, shut down all further offshore drilling, all the while keeping the blame squarely focused on BP and not his administration’s inept (to be kind) response to the spill.

But could his lack of urgency to deal with the spill be part of a strategy. Obama’s love of so-called “green energy” (wind mills, solar energy and other assorted nonsense) is well documented. So how would Obama push for the destruction of “dirty energy” and call for expansion of “clean energy”? Let’s look at what we know about the Obama administration and its modus operandi. As Rahm Emanuel said, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” This administration feeds on crisis. If they don’t have a crisis, they’ll invent one. The stimulus plan was pushed with an economic crisis. The health care takeover was pushed with an insurance crisis. The financial takeover is being pushed with a Wall Street crisis. So, what better way to push for “green energy” than with an environmental crisis? I’ll spell out what others have tiptoed around; I believe this administration wants this oil spill to be a catastrophe.

If my theory is correct, the administration is scoring points with the various environmental groups. These groups used the occasion of the Deepwater Horizon accident to sign a letter to Congress condemning offshore drilling as “unacceptable.” This includes any drilling provisions in their precious Cap and Trade bill.

We all must understand that our modern world requires energy and that means fossil fuels and the extraction of these fuels is inherently dangerous and accidents will happen. When they do, our government should be ready lend assistance so that the loss of life, the impact to the environment and the interruption in the supply of energy can be minimized, not use them to promote a political agenda.