Why the Chatter?

Obama says the constitution is a charter of negative liberties. That it only says what the government can't do and says nothing about what the government must do for the people!

He is absolutely right!

The founders believed a basic understanding about government that most today do not understand. Government does not have the ability to give you anything. It has the ability to give you something it steals from others, but for the simple fact it doesn't produce, it cannot give. So in order to do anything, it must engage in some form of tyranny. They understood this and created a document of limitations.

Why this is such a topic of debate today (following the constitution) I am a bit perplexed. Since almost everything the federal government does today is unconstitutional, why all the chatter?

They have already passed social security, dept of education, dept of agriculture, FDA, and on and on, which is all forbidden by the constitution! So why do people stand up and say "this health care bill is unconstitutional"?

This is where republicans ignore all the unconstitutional bills they passed and pretend they are the defenders of the constitution.

 by Jim Fisher

Division of Labor

Do cheap goods from China hurt our economy?

Do Japanese cars with higher quality and lower cost hurt our economy?

Is Detroit dead because of foreign auto makers?

The answer is no ! This is a difficult concept to explain. It's called the "division of labor" and it's the real reason Americans are rich in comparison to many countries. Let me explain it.

Pretend for a moment there were two different technologies for building cars. The first is the way you know, Detroit builds them in their plants. The second is farmers from Kansas put X amount of grain onto a boat and send it to a magical island called Japan.

On this island the X amount of grain magically turns into a car and returns to Kansas. So the farmer actually makes cars by growing grain (just pretend with me).

Now let's say 1 auto worker in Detroit can build 1 car in 1 day. In Kansas, 1 farmer can produce enough grain (2X) in 1 day to make 2 cars. Which process would be be smarter to use? Which process would make Americans more wealthy?

The fact that we get a TV from China that takes less of your labor to buy makes you able to buy more scarce goods with your same money. Should you hope to spend your same money to get less goods?

You say- but what about the jobs? They are stealing our jobs.

This is a wives tale. We can all work and produce. Since the car sales do not decrease, the auto producer from Detroit is assimilated to other industries. Yes, that auto worker may be making less money, but it is at the expense of making all Americans (including himself) richer by being able to spend less income on the same goods.

So while a few people must find other jobs (maybe with less income, maybe not), all Americans are richer because they can spend less money on the same car. So there is now a car in your driveway and more money in your pocket.

The fact that it comes from Japan or China is irrelevant.

The free market has no borders when it comes to the division of labor (letting who can make something the most efficiently make it). Borders do not matter.

Do you ever say- don't buy from outside Massachusetts?

Why stop there? Wouldn't you be better off not buying anything from anyone outside your family? Only purchase from your family members!

You can see how absurd this is, because if you insisted, you would only buy a TV from your Uncle, yes you would employ your uncle but it would likely take him a year to make it and cost you $100,000.00

The division of labor is how the free market makes us all rich. Whoever figures out how to make something cheaper ends up making everyone more wealthy. Because the rest of us get more for less.

Where someone draws borders, it has nothing to do with economics.

--Written by Jim Fisher

What Will They Do With Your Money?

So what the hell do you think they're gonna do!

Most of my friends on Face Book are around my age. Our generation has heard for most of our lives that we will never see our Social Security money. We have accepted this as a truth. We grew up and became part of the working force with the full understanding that we must take care of our own retirement.

The business's we work for knew this too and competed for our talent by offering us 401K plans etc..

So we work our whole lives doing the right thing. Staying within our budget and scraping a little away for the years we can no longer work. While simultaneously the government did exactly what our fathers warned us it would. It kept spending more than it took in, despite taking in more of our money each year.

Now the reality is here. They have had to conduct silly fake "pretend cuts" to keep the government from shutting down, but in actuality just expanding their massive debt.

We all know this is real, in just a short 5 to 15 years they will be insolvent. They WILL NOT be able send out the Social Security checks and Medicare payments.

And this is not my fantasy. This is not the voice of the radical Libertarian Jim Fisher. This is true, and you know it.

So what the hell do you think they're gonna do?

When the government is broke and can't pay anyone's S.S. while the rest of us have our life savings sitting there in 401K plans?

There are Hundreds of billions sitting with our investment firms, and you think they will just stop being the controller of people's retirement? They will leave your money alone and just quietly stop paying social security?

Perhaps your thinking we just need to switch back to Republican and Mitt Romney will get things under control? The last Republican voted in Medicare part D, the largest increase in the history of government expenditure!

Maybe it's time for a different answer.

It's not left, it's not right, it's America's 3rd way!

Libertarianism!

Obama, Ms. Fluke and joe the plumber

A reporter asked the President about Rush's comments about Ms. Fluke. Here is Obama's response.

Y'know, I'm not gonna comment on what sponsors decide to do. I'm not gonna comment on, uhh, uhhh, either the economics or the politics of it. Uh, I don't know what's in Rush Limbaugh's heart so I'm not gonna comment, uhhh, uh, on the sincerity of his apology. Uh, what I can comment on is the fact that all decent folks can agree, uhh, that the remarks that were made, uhh, don't have any place in the public discourse. And, you know, the reason I called Ms. Fluke is because, uh, I thought about Malia and Sasha. And one of the things I want them to do, uh, as they get older is to engage in issues they care about. Even ones I may not agree with them on, I want them to be able t'speak their mind in a civil and thoughtful way, and I don't want them attacked or called horrible names because, uh, they're being good citizens. And I wanted, uhh, Sandra to know that -- that I thought her parents should be proud of her. Uh, and that we want t'send a message to all our young people that bein' part of a democracy involves argument and disagreements and, uh, debate. And we want you to be engaged, and there's a way to do it, uh, that doesn't, uhh, involve you being, uhh, demeaned and insulted, particularly when you're a private citizen.

This sounds just wonderful. Yet where was the President's outrage when his dogs went after a real private citizen who was really minding his own business, Joe the Plumber?

Well here is another regular guy's thoughts.

Obama Bets On Pond Scum

President Obama says drilling for oil is a worn out idea.

You can bet that since it's an election year, they're already dusting off their three-point plan for two dollar gas. And I'll save you the suspense. Step one is to drill and step two is to drill. And then step three is to keep drilling. We heard the same line in 2007 when I was running for president. We hear the same thing every year. We've heard the same thing for 30 years. Well, the American people aren't stupid. They know that's not a plan.

So drilling for the tons of oil that lies beneath us is a worn out idea. Yet, he has no problem with claiming other technologies like...dare I say this..."Pond Scum" as a real option?

We're making new investments in the development of gasoline and diesel and jet fuel that's actually made from a plant-like substance, algae. You got a bunch of algae out here, right? If we can figure out how to make energy out of that, well, we'll be doing all right.

Really? This is it? This is the best the President has to offer? A technology that doesn't even exist yet, at least not in a viable format.

Now how is this guy not thought of as complete idiot? Why would any thinking American really believe this charlatan? Only a cult-follower would believe such tripe.

The irony is that the Free-market would bring down the price of oil. It is because of the tyrannical/fascist government of both the Left and the Right that oil has become an expensive commodity.

Santorum and the Sword of the State

Albert Mohler,  President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has written a very positive blog post about Rick Santorum, which you may read here.

He concludes,

Finally, Rick Santorum attracts protests on college campuses because people believe him when he speaks. William McGurn of The Wall Street Journal pointed out recently that, even as Rick Santorum opposes same-sex marriage, so did Barack Obama when he ran for the White House in 2008 (and, at least in terms of official statements, even now). But Santorum gets jeered and Obama gets a pass. Why? McGurn understands: “There’s no mystery why. Mr. Santorum is attacked because everyone understands that he means what he says.”

This is an excellent point. Rick Santorum is a Roman Catholic that probably believes what he is saying. This seems to be refreshing to many Conservative Evangelical voters. In fact, there are many things that he says I could whole-heartedly agree with. It is true that homosexuality is a violation of natural law. It is true that the sexual revolution was not a good thing. It is true that Mainline Protestantism is dead. Of course this is nothing new. These cultural and theological battles are as old as the hills.

But I find this paragraph interesting.

When moral conservatives reveal their reasoning, the elites hear the launch of a new Inquisition. It is simply incomprehensible to them that sane, rational, educated people might still believe in the Father of Lies. When Catholic Rick Santorum speaks theologically at Catholic Ave Maria University, the secular elites go into toxic shock. The same would be true of an Evangelical politician who would speak theologically of such issues at a truly evangelical college. Speak on love and you will not be in much trouble, but admit that you believe in the Devil and the press corps will go into apoplexy.

It is true that elites hear all kinds of nonsense when conservatives speak simply because they live in a modern world (modern world = no moral absolutes). So to hear someone say something is morally wrong would be threatening. But I would like to suggest another course than the one conservatives have been on for a looooong time.

Rick Santorum has no love for conservative libertarians.

“I would say the conservative movement believes that this country is a moral enterprise, we have God-given rights, and with God-given rights come God-given responsibilities, and we have a set of values, and if everyone does whatever they want to do, then we have George Soros, we don’t have America.”

Now I believe Rick Santorum really believes the "government has a role". But this is the problem with the culture war. Well meaning people have been sucked into attempting to save our country through governmental means. It would be one thing if Santorum were just wishing to limit government away from Modern Leftist ideas, but that simply isn't the case. Santorum will escalate the culture war with his policies.

We know in church history the fastest way to spread error is through a centralized ecclesiology. This has been true in American politics with the centralizing of the Federal government.

Let's use homosexuality as an example since that seems to be a big discussion at the moment. Ron Paul is right. If we take government out of the equation and de-centralize government in this entire debate over marriage then how could the homosexual movement force upon citizens their entire enterprise?

The simple means of accomplishing this is through the return of private property rights. By removing government coercion of cultural issues one way or the other, citizens could restrain one another through local means such as churches and other organizations. Business owners would not have civil rights legislation and bureaucrats coming down on them with the barrel of a gun.

Now this could go both ways. Homosexuals could prevail throughout a culture, but the reverse is true. Remember, fads come and go. The homosexual movement would eventually fall under its own weight and not have the ability to have a government perpetuate a culture war for them or against them.

When Rick Santorum says the Devil is attacking America, he is opening the door for the government to fight the devil with authority that it does not have. Only the church of Jesus Christ has the right to take that offensive and to do so not through military might, but through prayer. So although the government does have a role, its role is to restrain evil, not actively go after it. If you doubt this is Santorum's purpose, as Mohler seems to do, then just remember that Santorum has no problem with the government killing 16-year-olds at a dinner table simply because the President says they are worthy of death.

This kind of power belongs in the hands of God alone. Of course Santorum seems to not have a problem with taking that role.

Iraqi War Veteran Questions John Bolton