Growing Testy With the Twit

Barack Obama, Constitution, Federalism, Glenn Beck, Healthcare, Law

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals is growing testy with Obama, giving the Department of Justice “until Thursday to explain whether the Obama administration believes the courts have the right to strike down a federal law.” Via Glenn Beck’s The Blaze:

A federal appeals court has ordered the Justice Department to clarify comments made by the president when he said yesterday that it would be “unprecedented” for the Supreme Court to overturn his signature health care law (“Obamacare”).
“I am confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld,” President Obama said.
“Ultimately I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”
He continued:
And I‘d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.

It is a good day when activist legislation is struck down. The less legislation on the obese books, the better—unless it is legislation to strike down other overreaching, unconstitutional laws of which we have tens of thousands.

Federalism is forever being “discovered” belatedly and opportunistically by the Demopublicans. Since federalism is a chimera—it no longer exists in any meaningful way—the level of decision-making is immaterial to me. In this context, what matters is the decision to strike down ObamaCare. Who cares which branch of the hydra-headed monster makes it, so long as it is made, and, once made, it holds.

Crude’s Cheap; Government Is Expensive

Debt, Energy, Inflation

In “THE GOODS ON GAS,” it was explained that the deliberate and destructive policies of deficit spending are responsible for the steady rise in the prices of all commodities, crude included. This is so because deficit spending is “accompanied by an enormous increase in the stock of money,” as economist Henry Hazlitt explained in Economics in One Lesson.

Prices are rising due to the sustained policies of credit expansion pursued by a profligate government. More fiat currency in the system means that every unit is worth less. The coin is debased.

All correct, except for one thing, says Forbes’ Louis Woodhill.

Oil prices aren’t high right now. In fact, they are unusually low. Gasoline prices would have to rise by another $0.65 to $0.75 per gallon from where they are now just to be “normal”. And, because gasoline prices are low right now, it is very likely that they are going to go up more—perhaps a lot more. What the politicians, analysts, and pundits are missing is that prices are ratios. Gasoline prices reflect crude oil prices, so let’s use West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil to illustrate this crucial point.
As this is written, West Texas Intermediate crude oil (WTI) is trading at $105.88/bbl. All this means is that the market value of a barrel of WTI is 105.88 times the market value of “the dollar”. It is also true that WTI is trading at €79.95/bbl, ¥8,439.69/barrel, and £67.13/bbl. In all of these cases, the market value of WTI is the same. What is different in each case is the value of the monetary unit (euros, yen, and British pounds, respectively) being used to calculate the ratio that expresses the price.
In terms of judging whether the price of WTI is high or low, here is the price that truly matters: 0.0602 ounces of gold per barrel (which can be written as Au0.0602/bbl). What this number means is that, right now, a barrel of WTI has the same market value as 0.0602 ounces of gold. …

MORE.

UPDATE III: ‘Three Amigos Summit’ (CANADA IMPERILED BY US ‘PROTECTION’)

America, Bush, Canada, Foreign Policy, Military, Private Property, Trade, War

President Barack Obama, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and Mexican President Felipe Calderon met for their North American summit. Yes, it’s their get-together; not ours. They spoke a lot about “trade,” managed trade, or, in this context, the “North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which seeks to more closely integrate the economies of the three countries.”

When people are herded by stealth into a supranational arrangements (the EU, or North American Union, for that matter), it is with a vision predicated on rigid central planning, homogenization of laws throughout the continent, and heavy taxation and inflation of the money supply.

Moreover, what was written on April 1, 2006, in the Ottawa Citizen—about a previous Summit in which Vincente Fox and his buddy George Bush officiated—stands.

… state-managed trade is never really free. And NAFTA is nothing but a mercantilist, centrally planned maze of regulations. Whenever I cross into Canada to visit my daughter, I’m compelled to declare and pay taxes on every paltry purchase. That’s NAFTA for you! Governments have only ever ‘freed’ trade by providing law and order, enforcing contracts—and then vamoosing.
… The free flow of goods across borders is not to be confused with that of people across borders. Over 40 percent of Mexicans live below the poverty line, compared to America and Canada’s 13 and 16 percent, respectively. This means that the U.S. is flooded by torrents of unskilled, illegal aliens. The costs to the nation’s schools, hospitals, and environment; health, safety and security are incalculable.
…So long as the U.S. and Canada remain relatively high-wage areas with tax-funded welfare systems, they will experience migratory pressure from a low-wage country such as Mexico.

Naturally, protectionist policies worsen this pressure. If people can’t sell their wares into foreign markets, they’re more inclined to relocate in search of better economic prospects. Unhampered trade, not NAFTA, might diminish this pressure.

UPDATE I: Huggs, Canadians are as socialist as Americans, maybe more. But their leaders are less treacherous than ours. Because of this, “Canada’s balance sheet is healthier than those of other developed nations,” the US included. naturally, Canadians prefer Obama to Harper, but that doesn’t change the fact that they’re doing quite well as we struggle.

From the Frontier Center comes news that in Canada, private property rights are better respected than in the US.

The Frontier Centre for Public Policy, along with the International Property Rights Alliance, today released the 2012 International Property Rights Index (IPRI). The 2012 Index, measures the protection of property rights in 130 countries. …On a worldwide ranking of one to ten—the higher scores reflecting a greater protection of property—IPRI scores ranged from Finland with 8.6, to Yemen with a score of just 2.8. In 2012, Canada maintained its position as the highest ranking country in the Western hemisphere and is seen as a model of stability, with increased scores in the Access to Loans sub-component of its Physical Property Rights (PPR) score. Overall, Canada was 10th. (The United States was 18th.)

In Brief:

* 130 countries were surveyed in 2012 IPRI.
* Finland scores highest in protection of property; Canada defeated by Netherlands for 9th place by only 0.1
* Canada, at 12th place, scores higher than the United States (at 18th)

UPDATE II: Canada’s center-right government plans to implement and austerity budget, raising “the retirement age and making major public service cuts. “Ottawa’s debt-to-GDP ratio remains the lowest in the Group of Seven industrialized nations. Canada is one of only two G7 nations to have recouped all the jobs lost during the global recession.” …

UPDATE III (April 3): CANADA IMPERILED BY US ‘PROTECTION.’ ‘Derek’s argument, below, about Canada not having the burdens of defending itself and the world because saintly Uncle Sam carries the load for her is a bogus argument, the premise of which is that American interventions protect Canada and the world from harm and reduce costs for beneficiaries of this ‘protection.’ To the extent that Canada has been our lap dog in war—to that extent it has harmed its standing and safety in the world. By the way, this false argument is routinely made at National Review too.

UPDATED: Nothing Like A Peace Proposal to Out Warmakers (Like The Wicked Witch Of The East)

Feminism, Foreign Policy, Gender, Hillary Clinton, Middle East, War

In Libya, our murderous efforts brought the National Transitional Council to power, under whose rule massacres are a daily occurrence. (147 people dead today. “Inter-tribal clashes” is how the West is finessing the carnage.)

The West’s Libyan learning curve is about to crest in Syria, as the Us and its conniving (far smarter) Saudi pals are considering assistance to the rebel Free Syrian Army (FSA).

As RT reported, “Damascus has accepted Kofi Annan’s six-point plan to stop bloodshed in the country, a spokesman for the UN envoy to Syria announced… the Syrian government was willing to cooperate with Koffi Annan’s peace plan to ‘remove all excuses’ for possible international intervention.”

On the other hand, “the Syrian opposition refuse to accept any resolution that does not stipulate Assad’s removal, claiming that his acceptance of Annan’s 6-point proposal is merely an attempt to draw out the conflict.”

Meantime, at the “Friends of Syria” summit, which should be more honestly tagged “Friends of Syrian Rebels Summit (Allah bless their bonny heads),” The Hildebeest and her Saudi handlers debated the ultimatums to be presented to the Assad regime before overthrowal.

UPDATE (April 3): “THE WICKED WITCH OF THE EAST,” writes says Michael S. Rozeff, at LRC.COM, “has signaled the policy shift of the U.S. to bring down the current Syrian government by saying ‘We believe Assad must go…’ What is she brewing up to bring this about? This is a now familiar pattern. It was after Obama said the same thing about Gaddafi that the Empire went into high gear to remove him.”

The complete CBS quote of the Hildebeest’s words:

“We believe Assad must go, that the killing must stop. The sooner we get into a process that ends up there, the better.”

Clinton seems to have a major obsession about bringing the sufferers of the world under her “healing” ministrations. Another “War of the Womb.”

Jacqueline Kennedy was so smart; she said women should not be in politics. They are too emotional. (Later on she was forced to retract, as revealed in the audio recordings of Mrs. Kennedy’s historic 1964 conversations with historian Arthur Schlesinger, on life with John F. Kennedy. I am currently listening to the tapes—and to her mesmerizing voice—in the car.)