Hysteria at the FBI

July 21, 2010

The FBI (Fumbling, Bungling, and Ineptitude) claims to have conducted a “secret” test of the Times Square bomb Faisal Shahzad “intended” to make. According to the Bureau, the bomb “would have killed thousands of people.” “It definitely would have been bigger than [the] Oklahoma City” bomb.

Get a grip guys.

Yes, the Times Square bomb was potentially lethal. Had it detonated, there would have been casualties. But it is irresponsible to make claims about the bomb Faisal “intended” to make. The fact is, whether because of ineptitude, lack of funds, or the inability to secure the “intended” bomb-making materials, the bomb Faisal tried to set off was poorly designed and constructed; and, the materials used were of poor quality. Faisal may have had lethal intentions, but it’s what he did (or, in this case, failed to do) that should be of concern not his, or the FBI’s, jihadist fantasies.

The FBI did not release the details of Faisal’s “intended” bomb but we do know the components of the bomb he actually built. In every way, Faisal’s bomb falls woefully short of the one constructed by Timothy McVeigh and Michael Fortier 15 years ago. For the Bureau to claim that Faisal’s bomb would have been bigger than the Oklahoma City bomb is hysterical and irresponsible. (More about the FBI’s motive below).

Let’s compare the components of the Faisal and McVeigh/Fortier bombs. You tell me if Faisal’s bomb would have been “bigger than Oklahoma City.”

The Faisal Bomb

  • 10 gallons of gasoline
  • 160 M-88 firecrackers (these are cheesy 50 mg firecrackers inside a large tube to make them look substantial; they are nowhere near as powerful as the 2-3 gram M-80’s and cherry bombs that were banned in 1966; M-88’s contain flash powder, not high explosive)
  • Gunpowder (quantity not specified; gun powder is a propellant classed as low explosive)
  • 60 gallons of propane (or so some sources report; I suspect Faisal’s bomb was made with three 20 lb propane tanks, or about 18 gallons)
  • 250 lbs urea-based garden fertilizer

All told, Faisal’s bomb might have contained 600 lbs of energetic materials. Fortunately, it was a Rube Goldberg device that failed completely. Proper assembly of the components used by Faisal probably would have produced deflagration (subsonic combustion) of some consequence. If Faisal was trained by al Qaeda in bomb making he was either a very poor student, his instruction was inadequate, or perhaps both.

The McVeigh/Fortier Bomb

  • 2 3/4 tons of high-grade ammonium nitrate fertilizer
  • 165 gallons of nitromethane (industrial solvent also used as a high-performance racing fuel; somewhat lower energy density than gasoline but, because it contains its own oxidizer, more suitable with explosives than gasoline)
  • 935 lbs of ANFO [Ammonium Nitrate and Fuel Oil] (a commercial explosive widely used in mining; ANFO is classed as a high explosive)
  • 16 gallons of diesel fuel
  • 350 lbs of Tovex (a high explosive composed of ammonium nitrate and methylammonium nitrate; Tovex has replaced dynamite for most purposes)

McVeigh and Fortier knew their stuff. They constructed their bomb in the back of a truck, not a Nissan Pathfinder. The total weight of their bomb was 7-8000 lbs. They used multiple fuses, shock cords, and initiators to detonate the bomb and installed a backup detonator in case the fuses failed. In addition the bomb was tamped. Tamping involves surrounding a bomb with mass on one or more sides in order to direct the blast wave.

The McVeigh/Fortier bomb killed 160 and injured 680. Many of the casualties resulted not from the initial blast wave, but from the progressive collapse of the Murrah federal building. The Faisal bomb would not have caused progressive collapse of nearby buildings. It could have resulted in a large number of casualties but probably far fewer the the 840 caused by the McVeigh/Fortier bomb.

The Boys in the Suits

It is irresponsible of the FBI to claim that “thousands” would have been killed by the Faisal bomb. So why did they do it? The Bureau needed the press. The FBI, DEA, ATF, and the rest of the three-letter “public safety” agencies compete viciously with one another for prominence, public image, and congressional dollars. The Bureau led the Joint Terrorism Task Force investigating this case. After the Bureau’s failures surrounding 9/11 (and they were manifold), they needed a win. Never mind that the disaster was not averted by the Bureau. Prior to the event, they were clueless. After the danger passed, they caught the guy and they want everyone to know what big boys they are.

Guys like Faisal and Abdulmutallab (the Underwear Bomber) are dangerous and, unfortunately, sooner or later one of these assholes will succeed. In the meantime, we don’t need the FBI hyping the danger and crowing about “thousands” of deaths they had no hand in preventing.


Some Things Just Irritate Me

July 20, 2010

For a mere $10 per year (the cost of registering my domain name) I find myself with a bully pulpit from which I can declaim, rationally or incoherently, to an audience largely unknown to me. I have some loyal followers and, frequently, strangers drop by, a few leaving words of encouragement or disparagement. In any case, I am grateful to all who read this. It’s personal therapy. If you’re a sentient being and often suffer from cognitive dissonance (what thinker wouldn’t) I can recommend blogging as a way to organize and calm your mind.

I would be remiss not to offer thanks and praise to WordPress for providing this forum. If you don’t want your own domain, it’s free. I’d pay a hundred bucks a year for it, but don’t tell the folks at WordPress.

That said, on to today’s rant, a collection of minor irritations you may share:

Home and Car Alarms. When your neighbor’s car or home alarm goes off do you run out of your house, .45 in hand, ready to stop injustice in its tracks? Probably not. Like me, you doubtless utter some profanity and hope the asshole shuts his alarm off before you take your .45 and go after him. Alarms are fine but they shouldn’t disturb the tranquility of a neighborhood. Pay someone to monitor your alarm, you cheap bastards, and let the rest of us sleep. If you insist on having a horn or siren, put it inside the house or car. An alarm screeching at one hundred and twenty decibels inside a closed spaced will drive even the most determined thief quickly into the street.

Musical Ringtones. (Sorry RW).  I don’t care if it’s Bach, jazz, rap, or C&W; it’s just goddamn irritating. What are you trying to do, make some sort of statement about who you are? We don’t care. The ringers on old Bell telephones were pretty irritating, but they pale in comparison to a cheesy rendition of “I’ve Got Friends in Low Places” or “Toccata and Fugue in D Minor.”  Pick a ringtone that’s unique but unobtrusive. In 2008, Americans spent $585 million on ‘custom’ ringtones. Sheesh.

Blister Packs. The inventor of these diabolical containers should fry in hell. (The term blister pack may be foreign to you but you’ve encountered them numerous times. They’re those clear, impenetrable plastic bubbles behind which something you paid good money for is just daring you to try and get it out). Scissors usually are futile against blister packs; garden shears will work if you can just remember where the hell you put them. A box knife will do the job, but it’s only a matter of time until you slip and suffer a ferocious laceration. Sue the bastards. My remedy: If I buy something in a retail store I take the blister pack to the service desk and make them open it. Yes, it’s fatuous but it makes my point. Amazon, by the way, has told its suppliers not to use blister packs. For them, it’s a green initiative. To me, it’s a valuable public service.

Social Security Numbers. Even though I have one of the older cards that says “Not for Identification” (the new ones don’t have that caveat) I’m asked constantly for my ‘social’ (a term I despise).  I can’t give blood or buy a cell phone without giving up my social security number. (Question: How do all those illegals get cell phones)? At a lot of places (the blood bank, for example) I just lie about it. I use alternate phony numbers whenever I think I can get away with it. I’ve got a credit card that was issued years ago, when banks asked for social security numbers but apparently didn’t check them. My number is phony. The bank is none the wiser. Am I paranoid? You bet. Your name almost certainly is not unique, so identifying you to the exclusion of all others with the same, or similar, name is a problem. But someone armed with a number that uniquely identifies you and only you, owns you. Might as well do what the SS did and tattoo the fucking thing on the inside of your left forearm.

Illiterate Sign Makers. For Christ’s sake, we license almost every trade (plumbers, carpet layers, electricians, hairdressers but, oddly, not auto mechanics) Why don’t we license sign makers? I’m tired of seeing misspellings and bad grammar on signs. I guess it’s all part of the dumbing down of America or, as Roger Price used to call it, “Creeping Meatballism.” For a journeyman sign maker’s license, the candidate should have to demonstrate that he can read, write, and use a dictionary. Only a master sign maker, after passing a rigorous exam, would be allowed the use of apostrophes. All signs would have to be approved by Ellen Hall (the only person I ever knew who could recite correctly the inflections of “to lay”). I shop at Target, where the fast lane is signed “Ten Items or Fewer” (correct) as opposed to WalMart, “Ten Items or Less” (braaack).


“I Can’t Do This Anymore”

July 19, 2010

“I have grandchildren. I hate to leave, but I can’t do this anymore.”

recorded interview with a terminally ill woman prior to her death
brought about through the assistance of Dr. Jack Kevorkian

Several years ago my favorite correspondent and I were examining his latest acquisition, a .454 Casull pistol, arguably the most powerful handgun in the world. Fans of the .44 Magnum, or .50 Desert Eagle need not contest this claim. The point is that, at close range, any one of these monsters would pretty much remove the top half of your head, effectively speeding your body towards room temperature.

My correspondent and I examined the Casull, which uses a cartridge not much smaller than a double-A battery and agreed that, properly aimed, it would guarantee the end of life. We discussed our inevitable decline towards death, an event we hope is not yet imminent.  This led to a contemplation of the weeks, months, or even years preceding death when life might become unbearable. Pain, incontinence, dementia, immobility, and a feeling of utter despair await many of us at the end of our lives. A few of us will be lucky enough to die peacefully in our sleep, but more will suffer the lingering consequences of the approach of death.

We agreed the Casull would be an effective remedy, though the attendant mess would place a ghoulish memory in the minds of those we left behind. An open-casket funeral, if you care about such things, would be out of the question.

Jack 'Dr. Death' Kevorkian, served seven years for second-degree murder after giving Thomas Youk a lethal injection. "No change happens without somebody going to prison."

This discussion prompted me to look into the life and work of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, also known as “Dr. Death.” At first glance, Kevorkian is a bit scary—a cadaverous-looking man who appears already to have achieved what many of his patients were seeking.  While he is famous, or infamous, for assisting people in ending their lives, Kevorkian’s passion is far more encompassing than simply the right to die. For Kevorkian, the underlying issue here is liberty—whether we are free to do as we wish with our own bodies; whether we are free to live our lives as we choose, so long as we do not bring harm to others.

Kevorkian’s arguments are based on rational-objectivist philosophy and, he points out, fully supported by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Amendment IX

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Amendment X

These two amendments typically get short shrift, even from avowed libertarians for whom the 1st, 2nd, and 5th Amendments are sacrosanct. Amendments IX and X make it clear that all liberties, including the right to death, are “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

In the 213 years since the ratification of our Constitution the bulk of the work of legislatures, both state and federal, has been dedicated to denying or disparaging rights “retained by the people.”
Advocates of broad government powers would argue that, to the extent that countless rights have been taken from us over the past two centuries, this has been done by legislators elected to represent the “will of the people.” We have, according to this argument, voted away our liberties time and time again through our elected representatives. This, they would say, represents the will the people. Legislators seem to believe the people favor certainty over liberty.

Legislatures local and federal do not give a damn about the will of the people, nor are they concerned about what Alexis de Tocqueville called the “tyranny of the majority.” Most legislators have only one real interest: re-election. They will pander to the masses, lie, obfuscate, remain silent, or bluster shamelessly, each of these alternatives taken, not to support the right, but to ensure their return to membership in the elected aristocracy. According to one shrewd, if cynical, political observer:

“[For a legislator] the essence of political activity consists in a heroic struggle to keep permanent hold on this milk- bottle as a source of livelihood for himself and his family. The more his wife and children are dependent on him, the more stubbornly will he fight to maintain for himself the representation of his … constituency. For that reason any other person who gives evidence of political capacity is his personal enemy. In every new movement he will apprehend the possible beginning of his own downfall. And everyone who is a better man than himself will appear to him in the light of a menace…

“How little such a line of conduct commends itself to our public leaders nowadays is proved by the general corruption prevalent among the cabal which at the present moment feels itself called to political leadership. In the whole cabal there is scarcely one who is properly equipped for this task…

“Those … who have been elected by the people come from various dissimilar callings in life and show highly variable degrees of political capacity, with the result that the whole combination is disjointed and sometimes presents quite a sorry picture. Surely nobody believes that these chosen representatives of the nation are the choice spirits or first-class intellects. Nobody, I hope, is foolish enough to pretend that hundreds of statesmen can emerge from papers placed in the ballot box by electors who are anything else but averagely intelligent. The absurd notion that men of genius are born out of universal suffrage cannot be too strongly repudiated. In the first place, those times may be really called blessed when one genuine statesman makes his appearance among a people. Such statesmen do not appear all at once in hundreds or more. Secondly, among the broad masses there is instinctively a definite antipathy towards every outstanding genius. There is a better chance of seeing a camel pass through the eye of a needle than of seeing a really great man ‘discovered’ through an election.”

Kevorkian sees the fundamental weakness and ineptitude of legislatures clearly, but he takes the matter one step further by pointing out that the real power in our country lies not with presidents and governors, not with state legislatures and congress, but with the courts.

Legislators, concerned primarily with prevailing in the next election, will vote for any measure that garners for them either campaign funds or votes, preferably both. They care little about the right, or about justice and are happy to defer to the courts. When the courts uphold them, they proclaim the matter settled and hail the courts’ decision as a ratification of their wisdom. When the courts repudiate them, legislators throw up their hands and say, “Ah well, we tried, but the courts are the ultimate authority. Perhaps we’ll have better luck next time.”

And the courts? Doesn’t it strike you as strange that most judges in this country run on party tickets? What does party affiliation have to do with the issue of whether a law is consistent with the Constitution or not? Even in those cases where judges do not claim party affiliation (e.g., the Supreme Court of the United States) the political leanings of judges are carefully scrutinized. “The Law and the Constitution be damned,” say the legislators. “We want judges who will get us off the hook for trampling wholesale on the rights of individuals.

Even the courts themselves have a way of weaseling out from under responsibility for the consequences of their decisions. They cite ‘precedents.’ The more stupid decisions made by other judges, the better.

Kevorkian chose to fight his battle for liberty in an arena where he had experience and expertise. You may think you have no stake in Kevorkian’s battle. You may even disagree with his notion of the ‘right to death.’ But before you condemn him, ask yourself, “Do I have a right to my own body? If I don’t, who does?”

Perhaps in some future, more enlightened, age (don’t hold your breath) Kevorkian will be recognized as a champion of human rights.

(At this writing, assisted suicide is legal in Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Switzerland as well as Oregon, Washington and Montana).


At Least the Pope Recognizes Some Scripture as Valid

July 16, 2010

“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”

I Corinthians 14:34-35

On Thursday, the Vatican made “attempted ordination” of women an ecclesiastical felony, punishable by excommunication. The Vatican says ordaining women is as “grave” as sex abuse. Excommunication would apply both to the woman ordained and the bishop who attempted to perform the ordination. The Vatican has not announced the penalty for a successful (as opposed to attempted) ordination but one would have to presume such a heresy would merit burning at the stake for the woman and a week without pay for the bishop.

"See, I told yez the chics dig me. They even let me into the Red Hat Society"

At least Pope Ratzinger recognizes some scripture as valid. The Bible says women should shut up and listen in the church. And Ratzinger is making it very clear that, unlike turncoat Protestants who will ordain a woman at the drop of a mitre, the Catholic Church will not tolerate any deviation from The Word of God.

Joe, I’ve got a question for you. How did you figure out that Corinthians (above) was correct in its assessment of the role of women, but that you can safely ignore the Second Commandment in Exodus:

“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.”

Exodus 20:4

Last I looked, your Houses of Magic had graven images from one end to the other and almost all of them attempted to portray the ‘likeness of something that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath.’

I guess that’s why you’re the pope; making the big bucks, wearing the big hat, God’s cell number on your iPhone. When you talk to Him he says, “Joe, buddy, when I said no statues, I was just breaking the balls of the Israelites. Those goddamn Chosen People were getting out of line. You can put up all the bleeding martyrs you want. But I meant it about the broads. Give them an inch and they’ll be running your whole operation in a few years.”


Voodoo Economics, Obama Style

July 15, 2010

In 1980, George H. W. Bush was running against Ronald Reagan for the Republican presidential nomination. He called Reagan’s supply-side economic policies, “voodoo economics.”

Reagan is dead, and supply-side economics is moribund but “voodoo economics” has taken on new life and new meaning under the Obama administration. The current iteration of voodoo economics is best exemplified by Obama’s claim on Wednesday that his $862 billion stimulus package has “saved or created 3 million jobs.”

What the hell does that mean? First, how do you measure a job “saved?” Second, there’s a big difference between a job “saved” and a job created. “Saving” a job is no more than maintaining the status quo. Nothing is added to the economy; the Obama administration is just taking credit for not having lost something that already was there. This is a dubious claim akin to the man wearing a tinfoil hat:

“Why are you wearing that silly thing?”

“To protect me from wild tigers”

“There isn’t a wild tiger within 5000 miles!”

“See, it’s working.”

In addition to saving jobs, Mr. Obama claims also to have created jobs during the 16 months his stimulus money has been circulating. If this is so, why have unemployment rates not gone down? Unemployment nationwide still hovers at just under 10% and, in some economically blighted areas it is over 20%. If the stimulus is working, why haven’t unemployment rates dropped appreciably in the past year?

And how about new claims for jobless benefits? They have been running at about 450,000 per week for the past year. It wouldn’t be fair to multiply this number by 52 and claim that 23 million more people are out of work now than were unemployed a year ago. Some of these people have gone back to work in the past year. But the steadiness of the rate of new unemployment claims makes it clear that the lives of nearly a half million people and their families are disrupted each week by the temporary or permanent loss of a job.

Finally, let’s assume the $862 billion the Obama administration spent on the stimulus actually created 3 million new jobs. This works out to a cost of about $287,000 per job created; hardly a bargain. Let’s really stretch and assume that not one of these jobs would have existed if it weren’t for the stimulus. If these new job holders pay income tax at the rate of 20%, it will take them almost 30 years to return the $862 billion to the treasury.

Why is no one referring to Obamanomics as “voodoo economics?”


Tax Amnesty for Illegal Aliens?

July 13, 2010

This story needs to be understood by every citizen taxpayer. Illegal aliens already in this country will destroy our economy if action is not taken soon. The congress and recent presidents have avoided this issue because they realize that there is no palatable solution to this problem. Citizen taxpayers need to know how much amnesty for illegals would cost them. Like it or not, deportation is the only solution. No one in congress has yet had the courage to say so.

Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Lindsay Graham (R-SC) are pushing an “immigration reform” bill that has President Obama’s support (see Obama Wants Amnesty for 11 Million Illegal Immigrants).

There’s a problem with this bill and with almost any conceivable form of immigration reform: back taxes.

American citizens may be willing to overlook the past sins of illegal aliens in so far as they have made free use of our public schools, hospitals and health care system, and myriad welfare programs. But most of these illegal immigrants, whether they took advantage of the public treasury or not, have not paid into the treasury. How could they? With no, or phony, social security numbers they could not file tax returns without exposing themselves. “Besides,” many surely reasoned, “why should I pay taxes if they don’t know I’m here?”

Back taxes are going to be a deal breaker for almost any form of amnesty for illegal aliens.

Among the provisions of the Schumer/Graham/Obama proposal are “paying fines and back taxes.” For most illegals this is going to prove impossible unless the federal and state governments cut them special deals on back taxes.

Deals on back taxes for illegal aliens seeking amnesty are not going to sit well with citizens. Although the IRS occasionally makes concessions to taxpayers in order to get something out of them, citizen taxpayers know that these arrangements still are onerous. And they also know you can’t get out from under taxes owed to the IRS by declaring bankruptcy. Citizen taxpayers are going to be livid if the federal government and IRS allow non-taxpaying illegals to get out from under the tax liabilities that would be demanded from citizens.

Marco’s Dilemma. Let’s take a look at Marco, an illegal alien who entered the United States 20 years ago at the age of 25. Like almost half of our illegal aliens, Marco initially entered the country legally on a visa. He became an illegal alien when he overstayed his visa.

Marco entered the US at JFK airport in New York. After a month in the US, he liked what he saw and decided to stay. He moved to Chicago, where he had relatives from the Old Country. He took his relatives’ advice and set himself up as a self-employed handyman doing painting, gardening, light repairs, etc. For $10 an hour in 1990 he gave his customers good value and managed to work almost all the time. He made $20,000.

We’ll keep this simple and presume because of his relatively low income, Marco owed no income tax. In fact, although Marco’s income increased (at the rate of 3% per year) to $35,000 in 2009 we’ll assume he would never have owed income tax for any year had he actually filed tax returns.

If he had filed tax returns Marco would have found that he did owe self-employment tax (Social Security and Medicare). Marco’s self-employment tax would have applied to every dollar he earned before deductions and exemptions. For 1990, Marco owed $3060 in self-employment taxes. For tax year 2009, self-employment taxes were $5366.

Marco files for illegal alien amnesty under, say, the Schumer/Graham bill that provides for “fines and back taxes.” He goes to the IRS to see just how much he owes.

“Well,” says the friendly revenuer, “you owe us self-employment taxes for the past 20 years (see column C). You also owe a penalty for failure to file. That’s another 25% of the tax due and on top of that, you owe us a penalty for failure to pay taxes due. That’s another ½ of 1% for each month (totaled in column F). And then, of course, you owe us interest of about 5% on all of your back taxes and penalties (column H). The way we figure it, Marco you owe us $478,873 in back taxes, penalties, and interest (column I).”

“But, but I, uh,…”

“Don’t interrupt me pal. There’s more. For each year you failed to file a return, we can fine you up to $25,000, or sentence you to one year in prison. And this is just for being negligent. If we can show that you did not file a return in an effort to evade taxes, we can pursue felony charges, including a fine up to $100,000 or a maximum of 5 years in jail for each year. There is a six-year statute of limitations for filing criminal charges based on failing to file a tax return, so you wouldn’t be looking at more than another $600,000 in fines and 30 years in jail. But, there is no statute of limitations on how long we can demand payment or taxes owed on non-filed returns. “

“Well, I uh,…”

“Tell you what, Marco. We’re nice guys here at the IRS. We promise not to throw you in jail if you just pay the fines, penalties, back taxes and interest. Let’s not quibble about small change. We’ll just call it a million even, huh?”

Your dilemma. If you want “immigration reform” and you’re willing to accept the Obama/Schumer/Graham proposal do you really think the government is going to ask illegals to “pay fines and back taxes?” Sure, the government can ask, but there’s very little blood to be squeezed out of these turnips.

Marco’s case is not meant to represent the situation of every illegal immigrant but it does illustrate the kind of problems that amnesty would engender. There are potentially 8 million cases similar to Marco’s (some of the 11 million illegals are children for whom taxes are not yet an issue), each with its own complications and nuances. The cost of investigating and adjudicating each of these cases would be enormous and resolution would take decades.

And, it is unrealistic to believe that the government will recover the taxes due from illegals currently residing in the United States. Consider Marco’s situation. Even if the government waives all fines and penalties and asks Marco to square up his Social Security and Medicare, he can’t do it. Marco is now 45. He owes the government $136,101 in Social Security, Medicare taxes, and interest (column J). If he strikes a deal with the IRS (a deal they probably wouldn’t give a citizen taxpayer), he’s going to have to pay about $10,000 a year (at 5% interest) for the next 20 years to be paid up by the time he’s ready to retire. On top of this, he’ll also have to come up with another $5-6,000 a year to pay his current self-employment taxes. Do you think Marco can pay the IRS $16,000 a year on an income of $35-40,000?

Are you willing to forgive Marco’s past sins and foot the bill for his becoming a citizen? The Heritage Foundation estimates that just for retirement benefits, amnesty for illegal aliens would add $2.6 trillion to our already out-of-control debt. This amounts to about $26,500 for every citizen household in the country. Do you want your household to pay its ‘fair share?’ Do you want to saddle your children and grandchildren with this debt? And don’t forget, according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, illegal aliens already are costing us $113 billion per year, or about $1117 per household annually.

The alternatives. Faced with the above realities, I think we as a nation have three choices:

Do nothing. Maintain the status quo. Allow illegals to continue working in the underground economy, drawing, welfare benefits, and burdening our health care system. When the illegals reach old age, instead of drawing Social Security and Medicare, they will simply take advantage of our generosity and draw welfare and Medicaid. They’ll still cost us $2.6 trillion; the money will just come from different pots. If elderly indigent illegals file welfare claims a good deal of the financial burden will be transferred to the states and cities. Don’t put it past the federal government to do this. Congress can can make the federal balance sheet look better while bankrupting the states.

Tax forgiveness. Since most illegal immigrants will never be able to make good on their past tax obligations we can simply forgive all, or a significant portion, of the taxes they owe. This will never work because tax forgiveness would have to be granted to non-citizens to a degree that would never be offered to citizens. Tax forgiveness of any kind to illegal immigrants would bring our whole system of taxation to a state of collapse. Citizen taxpayers would simply stop paying taxes and demand the same treatment that was being given to illegals.

Deportation. It’s cruel, it’s heartless, it breaks up families, etc., but it is really our only alternative. If we don’t break up the families of illegals through deportation, we’ll break up the families of citizen taxpayers through economic ruin. In his July 1 speech Mr. Obama said, “Now, if the majority of Americans are skeptical of a blanket amnesty, they are also skeptical that it is possible to round up and deport 11 million people. They know it’s not possible. Such an effort would be logistically impossible and wildly expensive.” Wrong again, Barry. If it cost us the outrageous sum of $100,000 per illegal, to round them up and deport them the total cost to our economy would be $1.1 trillion, less than half what it would cost us if we let them stay.

Bottom line. Don’t let presidential or congressional smoke and mirrors divert your attention from the disastrous consequences illegal aliens pose to our economy. Got a better idea for dealing with the problem? I’d love to hear it.


Once Again, Chicago Steps on its Foreskin

July 12, 2010

Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a Chicago alderman. But I repeat myself.

stolen from Mark Twain

Until recently, Chicago had some of the toughest gun laws in the country. As everyone knows, they were very ‘effective:’  “So far this year, 113 people have been killed — matching the death toll of U.S. troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan during the same period.” (Chicago Sun-Times, written prior to the Supreme Court ruling).

A few weeks ago, the Supreme Court declared Chicago’s gun laws unconstitutional. So, it was back to the drawing board for Chicago’s city council. Undaunted, the aldermen of the Windy City (so-called because of its long-winded politicians, not its weather; seriously, look it up) drew up a new set of equally stupid, equally unconstitutional gun regulations.

Among the new provisions:

  • Limit each person in each home to one “assembled and operable” firearm. I suppose the idea here is to keep a household from becoming a warehouse for guns in the hood. But what good does a stupid rule like this really do? An illegal gun dealer just has to make sure that his inventory is not “assembled and operable.”
  • Restrict residents from having firearms outside their home, even on their porch or in their backyard. Define “porch.” This may sound trivial, but it’s not. Many Chicago homes and apartments have fully enclosed porches that are winterized. This little ambiguity will provide plenty of ‘probable cause’ for cops and plenty of work for defense lawyers.
  • Mandate training program attendance. Good idea. Maybe the homies will finally learn which side of a pistol is “up.”
  • Shooting ranges inside Chicago would be outlawed. So, uh, exactly where is this “training program” supposed to take place?
  • Prohibit the sale of firearms inside city limits. Why would anyone buy a gun in Cook County (Chicago) when it has the highest sales tax in the country. The tax savings alone will pay for the 10-mile trip to the suburbs.

This is yet another sad example of politicians attempting to subvert both the Constitution and the will of the people. It’s pervasive and getting worse.


News McNuggets

July 7, 2010

“Even less information than you get from the Associated Press!”

______________________

“Public confidence in government is at one of the lowest points in a half century, according to a survey from the Pew Research Center. Nearly 8 in 10 Americans say they don’t trust the federal government and have little faith it can solve America’s ills.”

Associated Press

80% of the people don’t trust the federal government? It’s the other 20% that worry me.

______________________

“Slightly over half of all Americans – 52.6 percent – now receive significant income from government programs.”

Christian Science Monitor

In other words, slightly over half the voters are living on money taken from someone else’s pocket.

______________________

“Tea party activists in Ohio are angry at the Ohio Republican Party, saying it is using its resources to keep them from winning seats on the state GOP’s 66-member central committee in the May 4 primary.”

Cincinnati.com

Proving that the Republicans are as clueless as the Democrats.

______________________

“The war on drugs disproportionately affects minorities than it does white people,” Lucero said. “And I know this isn’t a big problem in New Mexico but if you look at it, the crack versus cocaine disparity sentencing. If you get caught with a gram of coke it’s something like seven years and if you get caught with a gram of crack it’s something like 14 or 15 years.”

New Mexico Daily Lobo

Get drunk. Break someone’s jaw in a bar fight. 6 months, tops.

______________________

“A convicted drug smuggler and horse trainer appeared before a federal magistrate on Friday after his arrest for allegedly operating a rural Whatcom County business that catered to people who want to have sex with animals.”

Seattle Times

What’s the big deal? He didn’t give drugs to the animals.

______________________

“Promiscuous women are responsible for earthquakes, a senior Iranian cleric has said.”

BBC News

Before you make any snide remarks on the idiocy of Islam, don’t forget that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said that 9/11 and Katrina were God’s retribution for abortion, immorality and anti-Christian sentiments.

______________________

“Islamists have warned the creators of TV show South Park they could face violent retribution for depicting the Prophet Muhammad in a bear suit. A posting on the website of the US-based group, Revolution Muslim, told Matt Stone and Trey Parker they would “probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh” [i.e., dead].

BBC News

Islam is “a religion of peace,” or at least it will be once they’ve killed all the infidels.

______________________

“Shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 2001, for instance, [Billy Graham's son Franklin] Graham called Islam a “very evil and wicked religion.”

CNN

Martin Luther was overtly anti-Semitic, the Catholics and Puritans burned witches and heretics at the stake, the Methodists split when half of them thought slavery was a good idea. Islam may be a “very evil and wicked religion,” but it certainly has lots of company.

______________________

“President Obama on Friday criticized a controversial new immigration bill in Arizona, calling it “misguided. Our failure to act responsible [sic] at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others.”

CNN

Well, at least he’s admitting that the federal government has failed to act responsibly.

______________________

“The death toll on Chicago streets is rising. So far this year, 113 people have been killed — matching the death toll of U.S. troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan during the same period.”

Chicago Sun-Times

Don’t forget that, until the recent Supreme Court decision, Chicago had the toughest gun laws in the country.

______________________

“A group of Chinese and Turkish evangelical explorers say wooden remains they have discovered on Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey are the remains of Noah’s Ark.” The ark was discovered at an altitude of 11,000 feet.

Fox News

I can’t wait to hear their explanation of how the earth came to be flooded to a depth of over two miles. Oh, it rained for forty days and forty nights? That works out—it’s only 275 feet of rain per day.

______________________


Obama Wants Amnesty for 11 Million Illegal Immigrants

July 2, 2010

On Thursday, July 1, Mr. Obama delivered his first speech on the subject of illegal immigration since taking office. It was a masterpiece of teleprompter equivocation in which the president said “on the one hand” but “on the other hand,” avoiding any remarks that easily could be attacked by either pro-illegal-immigrant or anti-illegal-immigrant constituencies. He simply repeated the arguments offered up by both sides without detailing his personal agenda.

Once again, he has done the country a great disservice. Polls, as always, vary in their numbers (it depends a lot on the questions a pollster asks, how he asks them, and of whom) but when Obama took office, the top three issues for most voters were:

  1. The Economy (87% of those polled considered this issue ‘very important’). The Obama administration reacted to the worst economy since the Great Depression by doing something terribly Republican: shoveling huge sums of money to bail out the banks, Wall Street, automakers, and other fat cats. Obama’s only solution to the persistent 10% unemployment rate has been to try and extend jobless benefits. Neither he nor his lap-dog congress seem to have a clue about providing jobs, rather than welfare, to the unemployed.
  2. Illegal Immigration (78%). Thursday’s speech is about the only thing Obama has done about this issue. More on this below.
  3. Afghanistan and Iraq (58%). The majority of Americans wonder why the hell we are in either place. They see no chance for ‘victory’ and, in fact, ‘victory’ has not been defined. Even those who voted against Obama saw some ‘Hope’ on this issue. Perhaps Obama would have the courage to get the hell out. But no, he is simply extending the largely failed policies of George Bush 2. He has even gone so far as to increase our commitment in Afghanistan, while promising to begin withdrawing troops maybe next year if all goes well. He recently fired Gen Stanley McChrystal, America’s top military man in Afghanistan because McChrystal had the courage to discredit the Obama administration’s Afghanistan policies.

Instead of dealing with the voters’ Top 3, Mr. Obama spent most of his first 15 months in office taking on health care (24%) and, by the squeakiest of margins, setting in motion policies that will put our country into bankruptcy if the law fully is implemented.

But I digress.

On Voter Issue #2, Obama has done nothing, save for his recent speech. In it, he said he supports legislation proposed by Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Lindsay Graham (R-SC).  Schumer-Graham once had some Republican support but, seeing the handwriting on the wall, most Republicans have backed away from it. The law has four key provisions:

  1. Required Biometric Social Security Cards for Every American
  2. Border Security and Interior Enforcement
  3. Permits for “Temporary Workers”
  4. A Path to Legalization for the Illegal Immigrants Already Here

I’ll let you contemplate the pernicious implications of Item 1 at your leisure. Here’s Obama’s take on Item 4:

[N]o matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable. Now, if the majority of Americans are skeptical of a blanket amnesty, they are also skeptical that it is possible to round up and deport 11 million people.  They know it’s not possible. Such an effort would be logistically impossible and wildly expensive. [Hey, Barry. Hitler rounded up 7 million people 70 years ago using records kept in shoe boxes. You mean to tell us your lackeys are even dumber than the Fuhrer's?] Moreover, it would tear at the very fabric of this nation -– because immigrants who are here illegally are now intricately woven into that fabric. Many have children who are American citizens. Some are children themselves, brought here by their parents at a very young age, growing up as American kids, only to discover their illegal status when they apply for college or a job. Migrant workers -– mostly here illegally -– have been the labor force of our farmers and agricultural producers for generations. So even if it was possible, a program of mass deportations would disrupt our economy and communities in ways that most Americans would find intolerable.

And here are Senators Schumer and Graham on the same topic:

For the 11 million immigrants already in this country illegally, we would provide a tough but fair path forward. They would be required to admit they broke the law and to pay their debt to society by performing community service and paying fines and back taxes. These people would be required to pass background checks and be proficient in English before going to the back of the line of prospective immigrants to earn the opportunity to work toward lawful permanent residence.

Washington Post Op-Ed
Schumer and Graham
March 19, 2010

It’s clear both the president and the senators are talking amnesty, “…a tough but fair path forward. [Illegal immigrants] would be required to admit they broke the law and to pay their debt to society by performing community service and paying fines and back taxes.”

OMG! Admit they broke the law??!! How onerous, how humiliating. Pay back taxes? They’d better be paid in full and with the interest and penalties (and occasional jail sentences) that are slapped on legal citizens. Tax evasion is tax evasion whether you are a citizen or not. If your congresscritters even hint at giving illegals a break on back taxes you should be screaming at them. Community service and fines? Right, $200 and three days coaching the soccer teams their kids are in.

Nothing is going to happen on this issue until after the election, except for the Justice Department suing every state and local government that tries to solve its own problems with illegals.

Between the chaos of voter backlash and ill-disguised attempts to bring 11 million undocumented Democrats into the fold, the 112th Congress promises to be a grand festouche.


She Can’t Possibly Be THAT Stupid

July 1, 2010

Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.

Mark Twain

Yes, I know I’ve used this Mark Twain quote before. Unfortunately, I expect to use it a lot more. It is even more relevant today than it was 150 years ago.

Here’s Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), talking on July 1 about about unemployment payments:

This is one of the biggest stimuluses (sic; she meant stimuli) to our economy. Economists will tell you this money is spent quickly. It, uh, injects demand into the economy and is job-creating. It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name because, again, it is money that is needed for families to survive and it is spent. Uh, so it has a double benefit. It helps those who’ve lost their jobs but it is also a job creator and, uh, for that reason, for those two reasons, at least, uh, it should be passed and I’m optimistic that it will. It’s impossible to think of a situation, uh, where we would have a country that would say we’re not going to have unemployment benefits and the only people who want them are people who don’t want jobs. It’s just so contrary, uh, to what our country is about and I reject, uh, that misrepresentation of the motivation for people to be on unemployment insurance. (emphasis added)

The Wicked Witch of the West, an advocate of the Robin Hood school of economics: Steal from the rich, give to the poor and, somehow, everyone is better off. No one actually has to work.

Nancy, you don’t know shit about economics, do you? How does transferring money from one person to another create jobs? Well, it doesn’t.

I’ll try to explain this simply and slowly.

Bob, Alice, and Big Brother are in a remote mountain meadow. Alice has $20. Bob and Big Brother have nothing. The net value of this micro-economy is $20, Alice’s money. Nothing happens. Then Big Brother says, “Alice, you’ve got all the money. Bob has nothing. Give him $10.” Alice reluctantly hands the money over to Big Brother who, in turn, gives the $10 to Bob. (Already, you can see this is not quite like the real world, where Big Brother would keep a cut for himself). Alice has $10, Bob has $10. The net value of the economy is $20. Still, nothing happens. Big Brother says, “Alice, this stimulus is a good idea but nothing is happening. Give Bob another $5.” Alice coughs it up. Nothing happens. The total value of the economy is still $20; Alice has $5, Bob has $15 but nothing happens. Big Brother takes the rest of Alice’s money, gives it to Bob and still nothing happens. Why? Because all we’re doing here is taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor. Now Bob is rich and Alice is poor but nothing has happened because nothing has been created. Although there’s money, there’s nothing to buy.

Frustrated, Alice takes the $20 from Bob and hits Big Brother over the head with a rock. Now Alice has $20, but Bob has nothing. Big Brother is, mercifully, dead. The net value of the economy is still $20.

Alice says, “Bob, I’m cold. A buffalo robe sure would be nice. I’ll give you $10 for one.” From a piece of flint, a stick, and some fiber, Bob makes a knife and a spear. The knife is worth $1; the spear is worth $2. He takes the spear, kills a buffalo, skins and cures the hide, and sells it to Alice for $10. Bob has $10 and a spear and knife worth $3. Alice has $10 and a buffalo robe worth $10. Net value of the economy is now $33! Why? Because Bob created three things of value, keeping two and selling the third.

Bob admires Alice’s robe and says, “You look warm. You know, I’m kind of embarrassed standing here naked while you’re all wrapped up in that robe. How about making me a loin cloth for $4?” Alice begins stripping plant fibers and weaving them. Soon she presents Bob with a scratchy, but modest, garment. Bob gives Alice $4. Bob has $6, a spear and a knife worth $3, and a loin cloth worth $4. Alice has $14, and a buffalo robe worth $10. Net value of the economy $37!

After a few months, Bob and Alice have a small hut, some food stashed away, several articles of clothing, two chairs, and a half-decent table. Net value of the economy: $235.

This is how a market economy works. People work to create things of value and, in doing so, expand the overall value of the economy. This does not happen when you simply take money from one person and give it to another. No production, no value added. No value added, no increase in wealth. Everybody stays poor.

This micro-economy has been simplified so that, perhaps, Ms. Pelosi can understand it. I doubt she will but I’ll bet you’ve got it:  Stealing from those who have money and giving it to those who don’t does not increase the value of an economy. It simply changes who’s spending the dollars. It is production that matters. Ms. Pelosi, if you do not know how to create jobs and increase production, please shut the fuck up.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.