Category Archives: Constitution

Updated: Rest Assured; George Clooney Is On Board

Africa, Barack Obama, Celebrity, Constitution, Foreign Aid, Hollywood, Political Correctness

What a relief. Yet another philosopher king, this time Clueless Clooney, has been recruited to steer the proverbial Ship of State to safety. The President and Vice President want you to know, as they “assured the actor and activist George Clooney last night,” that

“Bringing relief to the battered region of Darfur is a top priority for the administration.”

By breaking bread with Clooney, the “prudential” Obama-Biden pair is doing nothing Bush had not done before them. Or the Clintons, for that matter. Bush went from preaching “trade not aid,” and being charmingly unaware of celebrity, to instituting trade tariffs, and pledging to Bono a 50 percent increase in U.S. foreign aid over three years.

Expect an American nation-building “expedition” to Darfur, which will be greeted approvingly by the neoconnery and others on the left.

For those of you wishing to be reminded, if only out of nostalgia, of the constitutional position on foreign aid, the late Lord Peter Bauer had this to say about the “morality” of “taxpayer’s money compulsorily collected”:

“Contributors not only have no choice but quite generally do not even know they are contributing. It is sometimes urged that in a democracy taxpayers do have a choice, which restores the moral element to foreign aid. This objection is superficial. The taxpayer has to contribute to foreign aid whether he likes it or not and whether he has voted in its favor or against it.”

Update: Western economists like the great Peter Bauer, the foremost authority on development, had been condemning aid to Third World countries for decades. But in the PC order, it is only when an African reaches the same, derivative deduction that the case against foreign aid is given credence by liberals.

The Bush Affirmative Action Mortgage Program

Affirmative Action, Bush, Constitution, Economy, Founding Fathers, Private Property, Ron Paul, Socialism

I began this thread, “NO Small ‘r’ republicans In The House,” with a visceral response to Republican Fred Thompson’s sudden discovery of the principles of fiscal responsibility—principles he said very little about during his bid for the nomination of his party.

More accurately, if Fred had spoken about spending and the Republican Party losing its way—the cliché those charlatans adopted—it was in the vaguest of terms, never confessing to the specific policy catastrophes he regretted and would reverse. War, the thing that propelled the country into debt, was just dandy, and “let’s have more of it.”

Myron has forwarded me Rep. Paul’s splendid response to the legislation known as the “American Dream Downpayment Act. “HR 1276” has exacerbated what Steve Sailer has termed the current “Diversity Recession.” Before I excerpt the entire thing, I’d like to make the following point:

This is not about Ron Paul getting it right on this one issue. Paul has been responding in the House in exactly this fashion for decades. He has never wavered; has always been morally and politically true and correct, always gone straight to the marrow of the argument; articulating what the Constitution and the Founders provided.

Unlike Fred, Paul responded in the heat of the debate, not after the fact; and for the benefit of the People, not for political expediency.

Now over to Ron Paul, and his rapid-fire response to the Bush affirmative action mortgage program:

“The American dream, as conceived by the nation’s founders, has little in common with H.R. 1276, the so-called American Dream Downpayment Act. In the original version of the American dream, individuals earned the money to purchase a house through their own efforts, oftentimes sacrificing other goods to save for their first downpayment. According to the sponsors of H.R. 1276, that old American dream has been replaced by a new dream of having the federal government force your fellow citizens to hand you the money for a downpayment.

H.R. 1276 not only warps the true meaning of the American dream, but also exceeds Congress’ constitutional boundaries and interferes with and distorts the operation of the free market. Instead of expanding unconstitutional federal power, Congress should focus its energies on dismantling the federal housing bureaucracy so the America people can control housing resources and use the free market to meet their demands for affordable housing.

As the great economist Ludwig Von Mises pointed out, questions of the proper allocation of resources for housing and other goods should be determined by consumer preference in the free market. Resources removed from the market and distributed according to the preferences of government politicians and bureaucrats are not devoted to their highest-valued use. Thus, government interference in the economy results in a loss of economic efficiency and, more importantly, a lower standard of living for all citizens.

H.R. 1276 takes resources away from private citizens, through confiscatory taxation, and uses them for the politically favored cause of expanding home ownership. Government subsidization of housing leads to an excessive allocation of resources to the housing market. Thus, thanks to government policy, resources that would have been devoted to education, transportation, or some other good desired by consumers, will instead be devoted to housing. Proponents of this bill ignore the socially beneficial uses the monies devoted to housing might have been put to had those resources been left in the hands of
private citizens.

Finally, while I know this argument is unlikely to have much effect on my colleagues, I must point out that Congress has no constitutional authority to take money from one American and redistribute it to another. Legislation such as H.R. 1276, which takes tax money from some Americans to give to others whom Congress has determined are worthy, is thus blatantly unconstitutional.

I hope no one confuses my opposition to this bill as opposition to any congressional actions to ensure more Americans have access to affordable housing. After all, one reason many Americans lack affordable housing is because taxes and regulations have made it impossible for builders to provide housing at a price that could be afforded by many lower-income Americans. Therefore, Congress should cut taxes and regulations. A good start would be generous housing tax credits. Congress should also consider tax credits and regulatory relief for developers who provide housing for those with low incomes. For example, I am cosponsoring H.R. 839, the Renewing the Dream Tax Credit Act, which provides a tax credit to developers who construct or rehabilitate low-income housing.

H.R. 1276 distorts the economy and violates constitutional prohibitions on income redistribution. A better way of guaranteeing an efficient housing market where everyone could meet their own needs for housing would be for Congress to repeal taxes and programs that burden the housing industry and allow housing needs to be met by the free market. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and instead develop housing policies consistent with constitutional principles, the laws of economics, and respect for individual rights.”

Updated: O’Reilly Won The Battle But Lost The Debate

Christianity, Constitution, Democracy, History, Israel, Media

The excerpt is from my new WorldNetDaily.com column, “O’Reilly Won The Battle, But Lost The Debate”:

“O’Reilly’s defense of the Christmas display was inadequate ..He fiddles with the icing rather than the cake…

O’Reilly defends the country’s founding faith on … the frivolous grounds that it is a State-designated holiday; a harmless and happy day. This is O’Reilly’s problem. He’s forever arguing his case from the stance of the positive law.

Christmas ought to be defended on the basis that Christianity is America’s founding faith.

To defend Christian America with reference to Un-Christian State law that has all but banished Christianity from the public square is worse than silly.”

The complete column is “O’Reilly Won The Battle – But Lost The Debate.”

Update (Dec. 20): HITLER AND DEMOCRACY. Ken Kelley asserts:
History records Hitler’s accent to power without a vote by the people.

Perhaps history taught in the public schools. Writes Ian Kershaw, professor of modern history at Sheffield University, author of Hitler, the Germans and the Final Solution:

“Hitler came to power in a democracy with a highly liberal Constitution, and in part by using democratic freedoms to undermine and then destroy democracy itself. …The Nazis’ spectacular surge in popular support (2.6 percent of the vote in the 1928 legislative elections, 18.3 percent in 1930, 37.4 percent in July 1932) reflected the anger, frustration and resentment — but also hope — that Hitler was able to tap among millions of Germans.”

Hitler was democratically elected as Chancellor of Germany in 1933, writes “Atlas of the Twentieth Century.”

“However, because the office of Chancellor was not filled by popular election, it might be more accurate to say that Hitler was constitutionally chosen to be the Chancellor of Germany, a democratic nation. The point is, there was nothing about Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor (30 Jan. 1933) which violated the Constitution of Germany. President Hindenburg legally selected the leader of the largest party in Parliament to head up a coalition government. It has happened hundreds of times throughout history without being considered undemocratic.”

This is exactly how democracy, “The God That Failed,” works. A leader is elected with a slim majority. He puts together a coalition which guarantees he’ll have a majority in parliament, and together they proceed to put one over the people.

Democracy is despotism by any other name.

Updated: O'Reilly Won The Battle But Lost The Debate

Christianity, Constitution, Democracy, History, Israel, Media

The excerpt is from my new WorldNetDaily.com column, “O’Reilly Won The Battle, But Lost The Debate”:

“O’Reilly’s defense of the Christmas display was inadequate ..He fiddles with the icing rather than the cake…

O’Reilly defends the country’s founding faith on … the frivolous grounds that it is a State-designated holiday; a harmless and happy day. This is O’Reilly’s problem. He’s forever arguing his case from the stance of the positive law.

Christmas ought to be defended on the basis that Christianity is America’s founding faith.

To defend Christian America with reference to Un-Christian State law that has all but banished Christianity from the public square is worse than silly.”

The complete column is “O’Reilly Won The Battle – But Lost The Debate.”

Update (Dec. 20): HITLER AND DEMOCRACY. Ken Kelley asserts:
History records Hitler’s accent to power without a vote by the people.

Perhaps history taught in the public schools. Writes Ian Kershaw, professor of modern history at Sheffield University, author of Hitler, the Germans and the Final Solution:

“Hitler came to power in a democracy with a highly liberal Constitution, and in part by using democratic freedoms to undermine and then destroy democracy itself. …The Nazis’ spectacular surge in popular support (2.6 percent of the vote in the 1928 legislative elections, 18.3 percent in 1930, 37.4 percent in July 1932) reflected the anger, frustration and resentment — but also hope — that Hitler was able to tap among millions of Germans.”

Hitler was democratically elected as Chancellor of Germany in 1933, writes “Atlas of the Twentieth Century.”

“However, because the office of Chancellor was not filled by popular election, it might be more accurate to say that Hitler was constitutionally chosen to be the Chancellor of Germany, a democratic nation. The point is, there was nothing about Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor (30 Jan. 1933) which violated the Constitution of Germany. President Hindenburg legally selected the leader of the largest party in Parliament to head up a coalition government. It has happened hundreds of times throughout history without being considered undemocratic.”

This is exactly how democracy, “The God That Failed,” works. A leader is elected with a slim majority. He puts together a coalition which guarantees he’ll have a majority in parliament, and together they proceed to put one over the people.

Democracy is despotism by any other name.