Political Sacrifice and the Permanence of Laws

From We Stand FIRM I learned of an article from Mark Steyn that states that the political price, being voted out of office, may be worth it to the Democrats in order to pass the controversial and unfavored medical care reform bill. Morality is a significant motivating power for men if not the most significant. As quoted (paraphrased?) before from Noodlefood: "Men are willing to create hell on earth if they think it's moral." We have already seen in the middle east how men can be willing to go so far as to commit suicide when they think their actions are moral.

Though the one thing I would like to elaborate on in this post is the fallacy noted by Paul Hsieh in the last paragraph of his FIRM article: treating the laws of men as equivalent to the laws of nature. I've seen some people prone to making this error.

The fallacy entails that a person treats the laws (political sense) enacted by man as if they were the equivalence of the laws (metaphysical sense) of nature, thereby meaning that the laws of man are immutable and will remain in effect forever. This ignores that men have free will and can choose their courses of action.

Just because the Democrats may be willing to sacrifice their political careers in order to pass a piece of legislation unfavorable to the public does not mean that the legislation will remain in effect forever or even for a long time; it may not even go into effect at all. Given the proper education and philosophical foundation a culture can be nurtured so as to reject these kinds of measures in any degree or variant.

At this point in the debate I'd say that we may speculate about the chances of or difficulties inherent in passing this legislation, but if it does pass I think it remains indeterminate how the American people will respond to it. Given that there is such a significant amount of opposition to this legislation (53% according to the latest Rasmussen poll), how do you think the public would react if the bill were passed against their wishes? Certainly not with a "Shucks! We lost! Well, I guess we'll just get used to it!" In the scenario of the bill being passed it would be extremely likely that Congress would have an almost complete turnover, and it also wouldn't be far-fetched to assert that there would be demand for a repeal of the law, but right now there's little evidence to derive any conclusions from.

Whatever does happen, we must remember that the results are not absolutes set in stone that will last forever and ever. If the legislation passes, then there's still hope for repeal, education, and activism; if the legislation fails, then we must continue work to advocate a rational philosophy so that the legislation doesn't get revived in some other form, which would be inevitable in the absence of such support. Right now things are up in the air.

Saved? According to Whom?

According to Yahoo! News Obama has been reported as stating the now one-year-old stimulus package saved the economy and has helped avoid a depression.

Absurd. As has been noted before it is logically impossible for the government to stimulate the economy since it cannot create monetary value; only transfer it from here to there. If Obama is correct (and that is extremely dubious given his complete lack of credibility, as noted in Lies Against Reality parts I and II) that his stimulus plan has caused approximately 2 million people to retain their jobs then it is also true that he has caused approximately 2 million people to lose their jobs since the stimulus money is composed entirely of tax money. Obama's efforts are worse than useless.

Regarding Obama's statement that he has helped the U.S. avoid a second depression, I previously noted in Another Successful Reality Evasion Maneuver by Pilot Obama that

...no one is at liberty today to say whether or not America has avoided a depression since the concept is not precisely defined; that is, it has not been given strict standards that give us the precise measurements that would determine when a depression is officially present. As of right now the concept is merely a vague approximation used to describe an economic situation that is more intense than a recession, though exactly how much more intense is what is unknown. For what we know we could be in a depression right now but not really aware of it since our present standard of living does not give away to national suffering so quickly.

Without objective criteria the line between a recession and a depression is very fuzzy.

These claims are without justification from logic or economic principles, and should be immediately dismissed. Let us not forget that the Great Depression lasted for over a decade when it could have died out as a recession in a handful of months, due to all the "stimulating" of the economy done by FDR. How else will Obama choose to "save" the economy during the rest of his term?

A Trillion Monopoly Dollars

It was no joke when I said incidents for activism would continue to be handed on a golden platter. In less than a month, Obama worries about "too much" government spending, changes his mind, and will now have the opportunity to sign into law yet another trillion dollar spending bill. I said before that his previous spending projects were historical expenses; now it just seems as if though he is trying to make his record unbreakable. The answer is too obvious in whether or not he will sign it.

And, last I have heard, a significant portion of the first spending bill has not even been spent. -- and yet they want to put another trillion on top of that.

It can be quite frustrating to imagine how many years of intense work it took to create the value that backs that money -- and it is all being destroyed within months. While my optimism for long-term cultural change is unaffected, the economic prospects are not good.

Another Successful Reality Evasion Maneuver by Pilot Obama

Two posts ago I noted the irony of Barack Obama being concerned about excessive government spending damaging the economy after he had already participated in not merely record, but historical levels of government spending and intervention into industries. Well, it turns out he changed his mind and is no longer worried:

President Barack Obama outlined new multibillion-dollar stimulus and jobs proposals Tuesday, saying the nation must continue to "spend our way out of this recession" until more Americans are back at work.

After being concerned about too much spending he now wants more spending since he thinks the last round was not enough? Make up your mind!

"We avoided the depression many feared," Obama said in a speech at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. But, he added, "Our work is far from done."

Actually, no one is at liberty today to say whether or not America has avoided a depression since the concept is not precisely defined; that is, it has not been given strict standards that give us the precise measurements that would determine when a depression is officially present. As of right now the concept is merely a vague approximation used to describe an economic situation that is more intense than a recession, though exactly how much more intense is what is unknown. For what we know we could be in a depression right now but not really aware of it since our present standard of living does not give away to national suffering so quickly.

A major part of his package is new incentives for small businesses, which account for two-thirds of the nation's work force. He proposed a new tax cut for small businesses that hire in 2010 and an elimination for one year of the capital gains tax on profits from small-business investments.

Tax cuts that will amount to nothing given Obama's proposed spending. For every dollar the government spends that is one fewer dollar for a private citizen to spend. Since rising taxes would be far too obviously hypocritical on Obama's part, I predict that he will resort to printing money, and, of course, printing money amounts to a hidden tax since it devalues/confiscates the value of the money of private citizens. The ridiculous episode of hyperinflation in Zimbabwe, for instance, has made it so that one-hundred-trillion Zimbabwean dollars ($100,000,000,000,000) is only valued as equivalent to ten U.S. dollars ($10).

Obama also proposed an elimination of fees on loans to small businesses, coupled with federal guarantees of those loans through the end of next year.

Which will do further damage. Elimination of fees on loans will make loans unprofitable and thus unbeneficial from the investor's perspective, and the federal guarantees will only exacerbate the problem by making it almost certain that loan companies will have to suffer loan defaults and thereby risk going out of business. Remember the Community Reinvestment Act, which caused the financial crisis in the first place?

I could go on analyzing this article, but it becomes depressing to think not only are economic mistakes continue to be made and are continuing to harm the economy, but that our politicians are making precisely the same mistakes down to the last detail. It should become quite apparent now that, despite his impressive education, Obama is an intellectual and philosophical mess.

Economic recovery is very much longed for, but it seems we must bear the difficulties for a while longer yet.

Facing Reality or Paying Cheap Lip-Service?

I know I may be a little off on my regular posting schedule, but I have come across another absurd article that I simply could not wait to comment on:

President Barack Obama says he's worried that spending too much money to help revive the economy could undermine a fragile U.S. recovery and throw the economy into a double-dip recession.

A pragmatic mind in action. If spending "too much" (how much?) money to help revive the economy would actually harm it, then why would he go so far as to think that stimulus packages would be economically healthy in any degree? If stimulus spending is sound in theory then it should be helpful in any degree in practice, but, of course, it is not. In theory and practice it merely amounts to taking money away from those that make it and giving it to those that break it.

Obama told Fox News in an interview Wednesday that his administration is weighing tax breaks that could encourage businesses to begin hiring again.

And this is coming from the one president that perhaps has initiated the greatest tax increase ever in the entire history of America, whether by direct taxation (like when he tried to push a 90% "punishment tax" on the AIG insurance employees) or by inflation (his trillion dollar stimulus, which could actually put us at risk for hyperinflation). After this massive taxing spree, now is the time he admits that perhaps, just maybe, easing up on taxation might be good for the economy?

The reality of things gets some lip-service, but is once more betrayed in action.

The Case for Long-Term Optimism

As you may already know by now, the House has voted in favor of the medical care overhaul legislation (I cannot keep track of all the titles since they either change them or divide them into separate legislation pieces) and it will now go to the actual Senate, the final hurdle to be met before it either gets rejected or goes to the president to be signed into law. Here we have it: legislation of a type that has failed everywhere it has been tried, in other nations and here in parts of America; legislation that is impractical economically and is immoral, legislation that is vicious in its very nature since it will cause nothing but harm and is absolutely indefensible -- is a step closer to becoming reality here in America. As depressing as it may be to think about, the likelihood is in favor of this legislation getting passed:

As Judge Napolitano notes, socializing medicine is much worse than just bad economics:

Even the Republicans have introduced their version of Obamacare Lite. It, too, if passed, will compel employers to provide coverage, bribe the states to change their court rules, and tell insurance companies whom to insure.

We do not have two political parties in this country, America. We have one party; called the Big Government Party. The Republican wing likes deficits, war, and assaults on civil liberties. The Democratic wing likes wealth transfer, taxes, and assaults on commercial liberties. Both parties like power; and neither is interested in your freedoms. Think about it. Government is the negation of freedom. Freedom is your power and ability to follow your own free will and your own conscience. The government wants you to follow the will of some faceless bureaucrat.

Please note that even the Republicans are pushing further government intervention into medicine. No matter what happens, we’ll get screwed. [From The New Clarion. Note that I do not endorse Libertarianism, as it is somewhat implied in the quote above.]

The Democrats and Republicans both want further government intervention into medical care, and all this is despite increasing opposition. Obama has been cited as even going so far as to tell his fellow politicians to be willing to *sacrifice* their political careers in order to pass this legislation. House speaker Nancy Pelosi feels confident enough to call this legislation a "Christmas present."

Now has it become fully clear how powerful and dangerous philosophy can be? If ignored and left to ivory tower intellectuals, it is such a power that can dictate, and possibly destroy, your life without you having any say in the matter. Of all the years philosophy has been viewed as a subject detached from life, we have come to the point where a massively destructive and immoral piece of legislation is close to being passed since its advocates think, no, feel that it is moral and that sacrifice is a practical way of living, and they may do it despite massive protest since they may view themselves as philosopher kings that know better than you and are above morality and therefore allowed to force things upon you. From now on when a view of existence is uttered, we must be careful to think carefully about its implications, and to dispense with the jokes about philosophy ("How do you get philosophy off the front porch? You pay for the pizza!").

But as grim as things are, it is not yet time to fret and view things as hopeless. Truth be told, I believe that they are plenty of reasons to look to the future with optimism. This piece of legislation, which has an indeterminate future as of now I remind you, is not the equivalent substitute for a culture and its ideas, but rather an effect. There is still time, and here are five reasons why I think we can look forward to a better future:

* * * * *

1.) A single piece of legislation does not alter a culture absolutely; it is only a consequence of a culture that supports the ideals that give rise to the legislation in the first place. The present legislation that would enact universal medical coverage did not arise out of a vacuum, but rather it rose out of a culture that supports a certain morality (altruism) that sanctions the use of force against other people in order to make them sacrifice for the common good. Whatever effect this legislation will have on the culture will not be total, and even then it is still a logical consequence of ideals rather than a series of actions alone.

If the culture can be made to reject its current moral ideals of altruism, or to at the very least rethink and debate them, we can perhaps achieve a different kind of consequence if this legislation were to be passed. If the ideals giving rise to this legislation are still fully supported by the time the consequences of this legislation are felt then the people who advocated and supported such measures will view such a reality as a proper way to live, and their kids will not know things could have been better; otherwise, if the ideals are rejected then the people will perhaps demand fundamentally different courses of action. A saying goes: Raise a kid in a swamp and he will never know that the air does not have to stink. What we need to do is let people know that there is not only a swamp.

2.) Barack Obama is acting in accordance with his ideals, and, as we have seen, his ideals, in their consistent form, disturb a significant portion the voting public. Since Obama will most probably, if not certainly, continue acting in accordance with his ideals, people will continue to be disturbed by his actions and there will continue to be a receptive audience for those who want to explain what is essentially wrong with his actions and world view. In other words, opportunities of activism will continue to be handed to us on a platter for a while yet.

We have yet to observe what the effect of the surge of interest in Atlas Shrugged will be, that is, how many people may have converted to the Objectivist world view or at least have become a sympathetic audience. This is one of the reasons why I am so particularly pleased with the Ayn Rand Center Blog: such a constant stream of commentary will do well to maintain and educate an interested audience.

3.) As an extension of point two, keep in mind that this legislation will not be enacted until 2011 if passed (so much for immediate reform). In that three year period much activism can be had.

4.) The Tea Party revolts indicate that there is still emotional respect towards the ideals that America was originally founded on, and that means the American mind can still be saved: all we have to do is offer education that attaches those ideals to reality. If such an opportunity is let to pass by then the revolts will probably amount to nothing, sinking since it has no intellectual buoyancy. Take advantage of the energy and fan the flames with ideas.

5.) Free speech is still a respected right (to a degree). So long as there is free speech there is free thought and the door is still open to rational discussion. However, this right is also under extreme danger.

* * * * *

The most important of the all the points is that about free speech. There is always time so long as rational discussion is not prohibited. If prohibited, there would be no other option other than civil war, which can still be prevented now.

When one loses hope, that is when all is lost.

The Power of Epistemology II: Institutionalized Education

Some authorities are warning that Obama's plan to lengthen school days could possibly lead to increased stress in children. In fact, some are even going so far, such as Mavis Brown in the article, as to suggest that kids should be kept in school year-round.

While some may be grading the plan "A plus", the truth is that there is no pen red enough to write an F upon it. Mr. Obama not only ignores what is causing the epistemological crisis in children, he intensifies the causes.

Now where have we seen this type of mentality before? If you will recall, a few months ago I wrote an article titled The Power of Epistemology: The Fat Controversy where I examined the controversy about the objective nutritional value of fat and cholesterol, about how it was corrupted by a single scientist who refused to acknowledge (i.e. he evaded) contrary or refuting evidence. As a result of one man's bad epistemology, suffering and death has been hoisted upon millions for following false nutritional guidelines.

I must add emphasis to this: Because one man practiced bad epistemology, millions paid the price in death and suffering. Confronted with contrary data or conclusions, Keys and his disciples would ignore them, and when reality would show that their theory is wrong they would merely deny it and calls would be made for an intensification of the practice of their theory.

Here again we have the misfortune of seeing the same mentality and responses recurring in another branch of practical science: educational theory. Confronted with the reality that children and (college) adults are emerging from their schools less and less educated, the policy-makers ask not for a reexamination of their methodology, but instead for an intensification of the application of it. In other words, like Ancel Keys, they are evading the evidence reality is providing them and trudging forth. Only, this time we have a higher price to pay. As evil as Keys was, there is already significant amounts of educational resources on why his theory is wrong and what guidelines the evidence favors, and prestigious spokesmen, such as Gary Taubes or Tom Naughton, being active advocates for such views. If government funding of scientific research were to be pulled out of the picture, then Keys's theory could perish in a matter of a handful of years.

It is otherwise, however, for education. There is widespread ignorance that the problem with education is epistemological at root rather than a matter of concrete problems, such as whether a teacher should teach mathematics or have his students teach each other (I believe it is called "Whole Math"). In truth I can only summon into mind one school that recognizes the problem and pursues to remedy it: Vandamme Academy. With so much ignorance and disputes over concretes, educational reform is surely to move in a direction only for the worse.

And what price do we have to pay? Everything. If you abandon or destroy the mind then you lose the products of the mind. Children are born in the state that of savages, and it is horrifying to think that the incredible failure of governmental education has brought us adults that go through life with the unformed epistemology of a child. If the whole culture is brought down to that epistemological level then we could have a coming of another Dark Age.

Knowing what we have to lose, now we have to ask: What exactly is the nature of the problem, and how do we solve it? Well, I am not an educational theorist nor have I done any extensive study on such a field, so I can only make observations based on my personal experiences and what little reading I have done. While my observations may be correct, I must make sure my readers know that my range is limited. For a more thorough analysis, I would suggest partaking in the various articles on education available at The Objective Standard (one article is free, others can be previewed for free and then purchased for a few dollars. I recommend "The Hierarchy of Knowledge: The Most Neglected Issue in Education" the most) and of other writings available by the authors on that page.

As for my own experiences and knowledge, I think the problem breaks down into two parts: motivation and hierarchy.
* * * * *
1. Motivation: Children not only have to face the difficulty of properly learning a subject, but also of maintaining the constant motivation to continuously exert effort in that endeavor, now and throughout the entirety of their lifetime. Many things in school work to undermine this. For one, kids are often not told or even denied answers when asking questions as to why they should learn the subject at hand or how they will apply such knowledge in practical life. The end result is that kids forget what they "learned", begin to become averse to, and even detest "learning" (which is really brute memorization in this case); or both. I myself have had my respect for institutionalized education crushed by a math teacher who was unable to answer my question as to how the concept of factoring applies to concrete reality, but ordered me to sit down and "learn it" anyway.

But a greater killer of motivation would be methodology. An absolutely false theory of epistemology is worse than useless not in that it does not facilitate actual learning, but in that it prevents and may make impossible actual learning. What is a greater way to kill motivation than to exert months and months worth of effort in a class only to lose a majority of the information within weeks of being out of it?

2. Hierarchy: The human mind has a certain nature, and so must have a method of learning of a certain nature as well. One of the crucial aspects of proper learning is hierarchy, the order in which things are to be learned. No greater example can be had than from mathematics: first one must learn to count, then to add and subtract, then to multiply and divide, and so on. It would be absolutely absurd, and impossible, to teach a child mathematics by first starting with calculus then skipping to arithmetic and then skipping to fractions, all before he has learned to count. And yet this is exactly what happens in other subjects.

The existence of atoms, for instance, cannot be taught to a baby who has yet to learn about the entities of which are composed of atoms (e.g. inanimate objects, animals, etc.), i.e., he cannot perform a process of abstraction without having a perceptual base.

The result of ignoring such a simple fact is that children today engage in a process of memorization, not learning. To learn is to understand the relationship of a concept(s) or phenomenon with reality and to integrate it with the entire context of one's knowledge; to memorize is to simply retain something mentally. Kids today memorize while in class and then let the floating abstractions float away when they are finished.
* * * * *
Combine these two factors together and you have the makings of a potential disaster: "educated" adults emerging from their schools having learned little, if anything; with a bad and misinformed attitude towards exerting mental effort, and being put in charge of a world which demands that you use your mind to its limit, or perish.

The problem isn't that Johnny can't read. The problem isn't even that Johnny can't think. The problem is that Johnny doesn't know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling.-- Thomas Sowell

Worse than stressing kids out, if Obama's plan passes it can bring us many steps closer to destroying the world.

Nobel "Peace" Prize

On the heels of the news story that reports Barack Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize, Doug Reich provides us with some excellent commentary as to how the ideology Obama follows necessarily leads to violence, which thereby discredits the award as having any merit:

And what exactly would a pragmatist seek to achieve in foreign policy, i.e., what would be the standard by which he would determine what "works"? Since "peace" is their ostensible goal, this means that any action in the short run that seems to be a step towards non-fighting would be regarded as good. Therefore, "easing tensions with the Muslim world" or appeasement of our enemies is regarded as worthy of praise and even a Nobel Prize. In the long run, will appeasement of those who overtly seek our destruction result in "peace"? To them, who knows? They must be pragmatic which means making everyone feel good right now.

[...] As Iran continues to build a nuclear bomb, as Chavez seeks Russian help to realize its own nuclear ambitions, as troop morale hits an all time low, what is clear is that Obama's weakness and pragmatic appeasement is making the world more dangerous not less. Obama has given a tacit green light to every enemy of the United States by implying that we will not defend our values either morally or practically.

If a consumer safety company became known for putting its seal of approval on products that more often than not harmed consumers then it would become a meaningless seal which no one would respect. The Nobel Peace Prize has reached this status by not only having been given to a person who has yet to accomplish anything to deserve it, but also by having been given to a person that is actually responsible for the perpetuation of violence. Some reward.

(See also: Commentary by Galileo Blogs and my previous post on foreign policy, Dr. Dolittleism in Foreign Policy.)

Lies Against Reality II

Robert Tracinski provides an insightful article as to how Barack Obama's considerably consistent lying is dissolving his credibility, particularly in the debate about medical care legislation HR 3200.

This is the way an article about lies should be written. All too often it seems like those who put forth political arguments leave assertions hanging in mid-air, which leads to only the like-minded, rather than a general audience accepting such an argument. In this article Mr. Tracinski does not merely accuse Obama of lying, he takes note of what assertions Obama has put forward and then cites the facts of reality that contrast his words, thereby proving, rather than just saying, that Obama is a liar by chosen nature.

It is much too good to post any single excerpt. Read the whole thing.

Before They Can Even Think....

It has been announced that Obama plans on addressing a special speech to students on September 8th, Tuesday. There seems to have been quite an upset over this, so much so that some are calling that day to be a national "Keep Your Kids Home Day". The charge being leveled is that this address amounts to indoctrination, but is it?

First, let us make our terms clear. Indoctrination is the process of instructing a person in a doctrine or an ideology. While this definition is harmless enough and does not set off any alarms, it is the who that it applies to that matters. If one were to indoctrinate, say, a thinking adult, then that would be fine as he would possess the capability to critically assess what he is being presented with and would be able to reject or accept it accordingly. A young child that has not learned how to think, however, is an inappropriate target for indoctrination as he cannot properly do a critical evaluation of the information before him, and will therefore have few other options than to accept the presented doctrine on faith.

The proper function of a school is to train a child in how to use his mind. Certainly the intellectual content is very important in that training, but the intellectual method holds primacy. Instruct a child in the proper methods of gathering data and thinking and you will have a child that will continue learn throughout the entirety of his lifetime, as opposed to the kids today who are being instructed in brute memorization and coming out of schools explicitly stating they hate learning.

Also, how morally bad a particular case of indoctrination in a school is to be regarded depends on what level of schooling is being considered. On a college campus the students should have developed to the point where they at least *should* have had some basic instruction in proper thinking methods, so indoctrination in a college classroom should be considered in bad taste rather morally wrong. In an elementary school, however, it is to be considered morally despicable. Indoctrination at that age is not to be considered wrong merely because it may happen against a parent's consent or because it may enforce unjustified prejudice, but because doing so hinders the minds of the children. Since they do not possess the ability at that age to rationally think about the doctrine they are being presented with, they have few other choices but to accept it on irrational grounds and thereby learn methods of non-thinking which could hinder or stunt the growth of their mind for the rest of their life. To fail to teach a child how to learn is the most condemnable failure any teacher could allow to happen.

Now, what evidence do we have that Obama may be presenting a speech which is a shielded attempt to indoctrinate students? First, we have evidence directly from official White House sponsored documents. From the prek-6 PDF file listed under the heading "Classroom Activities" in the link presented above:

During the Speech

• As the president speaks, teachers can ask students to write down key ideas or phrases that are important or personally meaningful. Students could use a note‐taking graphic organizer such as a “cluster web;” or, students could record their thoughts on sticky notes. Younger children could draw pictures and write as appropriate. As students listen to the speech, they could think about the following:

What is the president trying to tell me?

What is the president asking me to do?

What new ideas and actions is the president challenging me to think about?

• Teachers could ask students to share the ideas they recorded, exchange sticky notes, or place notes on a butcher‐paper poster in the classroom to discuss main ideas from the speech, such as citizenship, personal responsibility, and civic duty.

• Students could discuss their responses to the following questions:

What do you think the president wants us to do?

Does the speech make you want to do anything?

Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us?

What would you like to tell the president?

[All emphasis is mine except for bold on heading above bulleted list]

As Michelle Malkin has noted, this has a rather heavy activist type of wording to it, especially that which I have put in bold. Why should an American President be telling anyone to "do" anything? Given the nature of a proper government, it is highly inappropriate that he instruct children in "civic duty".

But we still have yet more evidence. Take into consideration this four minute video, which some schools have already showed in classrooms (although not at the behest of the Department of Education):



The use of celebrities in this video indicates that it is directed at the youthful crowd. Many of the pledges made in this video are obviously tinged with politics, and the last portion where they state "I pledge to be a servant to our president and all mankind" in unison drips of the philosophical doctrine of altruism and of slavery.

So, to conclude, yes, the probability is that Obama is going to use his address as a means of indoctrination. Regardless of whether or not one thinks the content of Obama's ideas is true, it is still not proper to present them in this format, let alone present them at all, to children.

Furthermore, this would not be proper no matter which President wished to do it and what his intentions were. It is not the job of the government to instruct its citizenry, using involuntarily extracted funding (taxes) from which the original owners may not approve of its usage.

What of opting out?, one may ask now. Surely if a parent disapproves of a certain activity he can submit his refusal and have the educators accommodate with an alternative activity. Not in all cases, states Michelle Malkin:

Reader Ernest emails a link to the notice on the Broward County FL school district site, which informs parents that they cannot opt their kids out of the president’s speech on Tuesday because the administrators are committed to “encouraging civics education in the broadest sense.”

Who controls your kids?

This amounts to physical coercion in public schools. It is a law that children must receive education in some form, whether it is via home schooling or attending an educational facility. Taxes for education may make it so that parents cannot afford to home school their children, as they may have to work, nor afford to send them to a private school, so the government forcibly limits their options down to government-run public schools.

Let us call it then: Tuesday shall officially be Keep Your Kids Home Day.

So...You Have Finished Saving the Economy Then?

Via FreeColorado.com I have learned about this video:



For those that are unable to watch the video, here is my personally typed up transcript, with emphasis added and but one grammatical note inserted in brackets:

The problem is, can you really get the American people to say this is important and force their representatives to do the right thing? That requires mobilizing a citizenry. That requires them understanding what is at stake. And climate-change is a great example, you know, when I was asked about the issue of coal. You know, under my plan, of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say whether coal is good or bad. Because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal-powered plants, you know, natural gas...you name...whatever the plant's worth, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money [and] they will pass that money onto consumers.

This is an strange assertion coming from a guy who has stated a few months ago that the he would be trying his best to save the American economy; now he is alright with explicitly stating that he has knowingly drafted a plan that will harm the economy? Astonishing.

But the President may not have been up on his Henry Hazlitt, for he only noted the direct impact. The absolute impact, so to speak, is enough to bring America into its second depression, and that is not speaking hyperbolically. Many have been pointing out as of late that this cap-and-trade legislation is the new Smoot-Hawley tariff.

The Smoot-Hawley tariff is one of the primary factors that started the Great Depression. (A tariff is a tax that is imposed on foreigners for importing their goods into a certain geographical area.) This particular tariff was so outrageously high that is prevented almost entirely, if not entirely, foreigners from importing anything, so in retaliation the trading countries imposed a high tariff of their own which effectively prevented American businesses from exporting goods and thus isolated America trade-wise. As a result, businesses suffered by losing their export sales, consumers suffered by having to buy inferior products or by losing some products entirely, and prices went up. (While this tariff may have been vital in starting the Great Depression, it was not what made it decade-long. For an examination of the economic policies that made the Great Depression great, please refer to the book New Deal or Raw Deal?)

The currently discussed cap-and-trade legislation would be more harmful than Smoot-Hawley in that it would affect the entirety of the American economy. Obama has stated that electricity rates would skyrocket, but does he acknowledge that every aspect of the American economy depends on energy in some way? Not only would electricity rates skyrocket, but all prices would skyrocket as well, thereby crippling the economy and preventing it from recovering until the legislation is repealed.

This is a good time of all times to contact your elected officials.

Lies Against Reality

I had been anticipating such a piece for quite some time. Peter Wehner has written an article titled Decoding Obama that takes a sampling of Obama's assertions and shows that they are lies by exposing the actual facts of reality. Take this excerpt for instance:

Then there are the things that have almost been forgotten by now. Obama, during the campaign, said, "[Lobbyists] will not work in my White House" – even though he immediately allowed waivers for lobbyists. Having pledged to slash earmarks by more than half when he became president, Obama signed an omnibus spending bill containing 8,500 of them. Having made bi-partisanship a pillar of his campaign, Obama has so far governed in a more partisan fashion than any president in generations. Having claimed the capacity to “see all sides of an argument,” the president routinely constructs strawmen he can set ablaze. And having said “nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past,” Obama spends an inordinate amount of time and energy doing just that (in one speech alone, he included more than two dozen critical comments, direct or implied, against the Bush Administration).

The consistency of his lying shows us that Obama is a "Peter Keating", Peter Keating being one of the main villains of the novel The Fountainhead. What is interesting about Keating's evilness is that he does not do evil deeds to others, but rather slowly destroys himself throughout his lifetime by following one single poisonous premise: placing others above oneself. Keating does not care about what is "good" or what is "true"; he cares about what other people think is good and what other people think of the truth. As a result he lives a life of dishonesty, for he says what other people what to hear while never living up to it in action.

Obama is the same way in that his words seemingly always oppose his actions. He states that he is not going to run the business of General Motors, but in action his administration is responsible for the firing of several employees, honoring warranties, and designing new products. He states that he is outraged at the actions of the government of Iran during its election protests, but in action it amounted to nothing since it has been stated that talks with Iran will still persist despite recent violence (which is more Dr. Dolittleism in foreign policy). He states that he is going to cut spending by $100 million dollars, thus saving the United States money, but in action he has increased the debt by trillions.

It is nonsensical now to take any of his future words seriously. Read the whole article.