Category Archives: Barack Obama

Osama: 1, America: 0

Barack Obama, Homeland Security, Individual Rights, Regulation, Terrorism, The State

What was/is a greater danger to the republic of blessed memory: the (now-dead) Osama bin Laden, or the state apparatus installed in his honor? You tell me.

In July of 2010, the Congressional Research Service estimated that “the United States had spent more than $1 trillion on wars since the September 11, 2001.” That was in 2010.

For all the din being made over the opportunity to cut back on so-called counter-terrorism efforts now that bin Laden is dead—you and I know that’s never going to happen.

Since 9/11, our overlords who art in DC have doubled the defense budget, adding a Department of Homeland Security that took us from passing through a metal detector in our travels to genital manipulation and irradiation.

The police state perfected under the now fully rehabilitated “W,” and perpetuated under Obama his successor, is considered a co-equal branch of government. Your Fourth Amendment rights come with multiplying exclusionary clauses, not least that an agent of the state has the right to treat those who still travel (I try not to) like meat in a meatpacking factory.

The budget allotted to the repugnant TSA agents comes to $6.3 billion annually. According to Randall Holcombe of the Independent Institute, “The damage al Qaeda’s attack caused when it destroyed the World Trade Center was about $10 billion.”

In her familiar smarmy style, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow waxed nostalgic about the pre-9/11 era. She managed some valid points: “Ten years ago, before 9/11, the U.S. defense budget was half the size that it is now.

Ten years ago, before 9/11, there was no Department of Homeland Security. Had someone suggested that there ought to be one, you probably would have teased them for using a weird word like homeland.

Ten years ago before 9/11, you walked through a metal detector to get through an airplane, sure, but this was the kind of thing you‘d only do maybe on a third date. Sometimes on your flight, even the pilots would keep the cockpit door open and you could see them work and you could see the world fly by through their windshield if you peered down the aisle.

… Before 9/11, the U.S. legal history of torture was of our government prosecuting people for that. Wartime was no excuse. [Really?]

Before 9/11, the National Security Agency having access to everybody‘s emails and phone calls and texts and bank records and everything would have been a scandal.

Before 9/11, we did not have a new militarized intelligence bureaucracy that ‘The Washington Post’ described as an additional 1,271 government organizations, 1,931 private companies and an estimated 854,000 people holding top secret security clearances.

Before 9/11, no one in politics and private life talked about Article III Courts. Courted called for under the Constitution because those were just what courts were. We didn‘t have anything but Article III courts. Why would we?

Before 9/11, we didn‘t drop bombs using flying robots.

Before 9/11, we had not lost 3,000 people in Lower Manhattan and at the Pentagon and in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

Before 9/11, we did not have 2.2 million Americans who are Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and we did not have the national promise to do right by them as a country in respecting their service.

Before 9/11, we had not lost more than 6,000 of those veterans in our post-9/11 wars before U.S. forces finally founder and killed Osama bin Laden.

If you were a kid when 9/11 happened, it may be hard to imagine our country without all of these things in place.

If you were an adult when 9/11 happened, you probably never could have believed this is how we would have chosen to spend the decade after.”

Barack’s Brilliant One-Two Punch

Affirmative Action, Barack Obama, Conspiracy, Pseudo-intellectualism, Republicans, Uncategorized

Our president may be stupid as far as political economy goes (a stupid “you can’t fix”), but when it comes to politics, he is as wily as a fox (see “Obama Cunning, Not Clever”). It is also true that Republicans pushing the Birther conspiracy are, to put is kindly, no match for this very mediocre man.

The bellicose and bombastic Donald Trump was dealt a well-deserved blow, when, to amplified attention (due to Trump publicity), Obama released a “Certificate of Live Birth.”

The president, who discussed the release at the White House without taking questions, said he had been “puzzled” by the enduring shelf life of the issue and acknowledged the announcement may not put the so-called birther controversy to rest. But he told the public and the media that it’s time to “get serious.”

As was mentioned in “Alien In More Than One Way,” I never understood the fetish with Obama’s alleged elusive birth certificate. “The President is an alien on so many levels, I fail to see why the formality of his birth is more central than the insanity and un-American nature of his thinking (which can be said of many other of his fellow pols, although BO is, admittedly, an extreme case).”

“Besides, isn’t BO American by virtue of his mother being an American? Mother Obama was a natural-born American, so baby BO is as well. The whole thing is a little loopy.”

This side show has sundered a chance to expose the lack of curiosity among Obama’s media acolytes about the president’s heavily guarded school and scholarly records. Obama’s Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago: none has been released, and none of the media that matters have evinced the slightest curiosity about these papers.

Thanks to the Birthers, lost is the opportunity to expose affirmative action, as it ripples through American society, affecting everything from the housing foreclosure crisis—“The Minority Meltdown”—to the highest office in the land.

NoBamas Bearing Gifts, Please

Barack Obama, Britain, Etiquette, Foreign Policy

Despite animated discussion on the cable networks about the guest list for the British Royal wedding, I noticed that both anchors on FoxNews and MSNBC avoided mentioning the absence of the Obamas. I would have thought that Fox might gloat, but no. Could this be so because the official Left and the Right equate national greatness with the degree to which our political officials are courted across the world? To both official factions, our national honor is wrapped up in our political elites, and not in the common American. Perhaps FoxNews and MSNBC were equally embarrassed? Granted, to substitue for the Obamas’ absence, there are many other odious characters on the list. Still, Margaret Thatcher has been invited, but not Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, the last two god-awful, Labor-government prime ministers.

The official line is good for a laugh: “[O]nly crowned heads of states and and political leaders from the 54-member Commonwealth of nations [are] traditionally invited to royal weddings.”

Maybe the young couple is afraid of the “Gangsta Gifts” Michelle Obama might have brought along?

From the grandeur of her White House Crib, the FLOTUS is famous for giving Prime Minister Brown a box of 25 DVDs including “ET,” “The Wizard of Oz,” and “Star Wars,” “a cheap gift which spoke to the giver’s impoverishment. The DVDs were also region-encoded for North America and could not be played in Britain. Brown gave Obama ‘a pen holder carved from the timber of an anti-slave ship.'”

“Before the DVD and gift-shop gaffes, there was the weightier matter of the bust of Winston Churchill. ‘The valuable bronze by Sir Jacob Epstein had been loaned by the British government to George W. Bush,’ wrote syndicated columnist Diana West. ‘One of President Obama’s first acts as president was to consign that symbol to a box and send it packing.'”

Most recently, as Daniel Hannan noted, Obama “used the Louisiana oil spill to attack an imaginary company called ‘British Petroleum’ (it has been BP for the past decade, ever since the merger with Amoco gave it as many American as British shareholders). … He managed, on his visit to West Africa, to refer to the struggle for independence, but not to the Royal Navy’s campaign against slavery.”

Whether you like Churchill or not is immaterial. The return of the Churchill bronze confirmed the suspicion that Obama was anti-Occident. The habit of giving inappropriate, thoughtless presents—despite the fact that he and his family were deluged with wild effusions of love and lavish gifts—this showed Obama to be, well, a bit of a pig.

Maybe Prince William and Kate Middleton think that inviting the rude American duo to their wedding is infra dig.

[Oh, I learned something new from all this: Tonga is a monarchy.]

Facebook Forced To Fawn Over Beltway Bosses

Barack Obama, Business, Democrats, Fascism, Government, Regulation, Republicans, The State

Had Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook—which we all use to such great advantage—neglected to schmooze Washington, one of this or the next administration’s top dogs (Republicans are no better than Democrats in persecuting business) would pick-up the scent and give chase. Why? Because we labor under a system “in which the government leaves nominal ownership of the means of production in the hands of private individuals but exercises control by means of regulatory legislation and reaps most of the profit by means of heavy taxation.” So wrote the Tannehills in The Market for Liberty.

Fascism, in short.

Duly, Facebook now has a new Washington office. As the Wall Street Journal reported:

“… Facebook is still trying to find a path to Washington, where the company has only a fledgling lobbying operation, even though it finds its privacy policies under increasing scrutiny and is trying to navigate a politically sensitive expansion into China.

In seven years, Facebook has risen from a tiny start-up to an Internet power with a potential market value estimated at more than $50 billion. Now an online forum with more than 600 million users, Facebook faces growing pressure from lawmakers and regulators concerned about the way it uses personal information shared by its users. [Yeah, right; the Big Bosses only want what’s best for us.]

At the same time, the company is confronting questions about how it will handle its role as a global public square for dissidents if it enters China and other countries with little tolerance for dissent. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal about its approach abroad, Facebook officials in Washington suggested the company might be willing to play by China’s rules—a stance that could raise hackles in Congress.

Until lately, Facebook has spent very little money in Washington, even by Silicon Valley’s frugal standards. The company’s outlays on lobbying totaled $351,000 last year, federal records show. That’s a fraction of the amount spent by other technology giants, including Google Inc.’s $5.2 million and Microsoft Corp.’s $6.9 million.”

[SNIP]

Any serious student of economics knows that regulation hinders wealth creation, often forcing the entrepreneur to replace viable, voluntary trades and transactions with bureaucratic, politicized decision making. Rather than concentrate on satisfying and protecting his users on Facebook, Zuckerberg, is now compelled to divert resources from customer service and technical innovation into navigating the bureaucrat’s tax and regulatory laws.