Simple Economics by Steve Forbes

Here is a simple explanation of why stimulus doesn't work.  And a surprising prediction that soon we may re-link the dollar to gold, to provide more stability.  And a predictable viewpoint:  Government messing in markets is costing all of us dearly and inhibiting growth.

This is Steve Forbes at the Commonwealth Club on August 24, 2012.

Steve-forbes-simple-ways-get-us-economy-growing-again-82412

I like his use of esoteric technical terms like "kablooie."

Also note his take on Hoover signing the Smoot-Hawley Import Tax Act in 1930.  He says SM was a major cause of the Depression.
See Wikipedia:  Smoot-Hawley_Tariff_Act

Party Planks on the 2nd: A Clear Choice

I believe there is a clear and definite choice between the two parties (see two previous posts) as concerns the 2nd Amendment. 

The Republicans have presented a very strong and detailed position of support for the 2nd and the basic human right of self defense.  They treat the public as adults.

The Democrats have once again trotted out tired appeals to "reasonableness" and a call for a renewed AWB ban.  Clinton tried that and it didn't work.  We have 22,000 plus gun laws in this country and most don't work, but most are considered "reasonable."  The only reasonable explanation is that criminals don't care about laws.  And Democrats mostly care about control of the law-abiding.  They treat the public as children.

I chose the former.

Democratic Party Plank on the 2nd Amendment

Quoted from the National Shooting Sports Foundation website:

Democratic Platform ‘Commonsense Improvements’ Brings Back ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban, Gun Show Loophole Arguments

September 4, 2012 By gunvote 37 Comments

• inShare
• Em

The 2012 Democratic National Convention released its party platform today and it quickly drew fire from several points of the political spectrum for its statement on the Second Amendment and firearms ownership. As we did with the corresponding Republican platform section, we include it in its entirety:

“Firearms. We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements – like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole – so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.”

So, we again see the rhetorical pattern of a quick acknowledgement that there is a Second Amendment, followed by the call for reasonable regulation, a few words about the terribleness of gun violence and the need for national debate, a pivot to focusing on effective enforcement of existing laws and then the grand finale of bringing back the “assault weapons ban” and closing the “gun show loophole” with the closing phrase that promises what the just aforementioned strictures would – once again – certainly not accomplish.”

For those enjoying the last week of August and who, as a result, may have missed the Republican National Convention’s approved party plank on the Second Amendment, the contrast with what you just read above will be clear and easy to see. We encourage you to read both platforms and draw your own conclusions before you #gunvote on Election Day.

Republican Party Plank on the 2nd Amendment

Quoted from the National Shooting Sports Foundation's website:

The Republican Platform Plank on the 2nd Amendment

August 30, 2012 By gunvote 16 Comments

• 
  
• 
  
• 1
  inShare
• Email

It’s not often that a political position statement in this the 21st Century does not warrant further explanation, interpretation or parsing. In this regard, the Republican platform plank on the Second Amendment is a breath of fresh air. Although the wording is present-day, the directness of expression and clarity of sentiment is so in keeping with how our forefathers approached the issue of our freedoms that we recommend it to you without further comment.

“We uphold the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, a right which antedated the Constitution and was solemnly confirmed by the Second Amendment. We acknowledge, support, and defend the law-abiding citizen’s God-given right of self-defense. We call for the protection of such fundamental individual rights recognized in the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago affirming that right, and we recognize the individual responsibility to safely use and store firearms. This also includes the right to obtain and store ammunition without registration. We support the fundamental right to self-defense wherever a law-abiding citizen has a legal right to be, and we support federal legislation that would expand the exercise of that right by allowing those with state-issued carry permits to carry firearms in any state that issues such permits to its own residents. Gun ownership is responsible citizenship, enabling Americans to defend their homes and communities. We condemn frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers and oppose federal licensing or registration of law-abiding gun owners. We oppose legislation that is intended to restrict our Second Amendment rights by limiting the capacity of clips or magazines or otherwise restoring the ill-considered Clinton gun ban. We condemn the reckless actions associated with the operation known as “Fast and Furious,” conducted by the Department of Justice, which resulted in the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol Agent and others on both sides of the border. We applaud the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives in holding the current Administration’s Attorney General in contempt of Congress for his refusal to cooperate with their investigation into that debacle. We oppose the improper collection of firearms sales information in the four southern border states, which was imposed without congressional authority.”

Now as the Democratic National Convention approaches, we can hope for a campaign platform statement on the right to keep and bear arms that is as straightforward, respectful of our history and of recent Supreme Court decisions as the reasonable members of that party can achieve. We will not hold our breath, but we can hope.

Obama Campaign and the Flag Code

What do you think?

The Obama Campaign has some creative art and merchandise based on the Stars and Stripes.  Do these flags representations violate the US Flag Code or just insult the flag?  https://store.barackobama.com/obama-2012-store-essentials/obama-2012-store-new-products.html

The Obama Campaign has a poor track record in how they treat the flag.  They have been seen to drop it on the ground while setting up a venue.  “176(b) The flag should never touch anything beneath it, such as the ground, the floor, water, or merchandise.”

The Flag Code does states that: “§178. Modification of rules and customs by President - Any rule or custom pertaining to the display of the flag of the United States of America, set forth herein, may be altered, modified, or repealed, or additional rules with respect thereto may be prescribed, by the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, whenever he deems it to be appropriate or desirable; and any such alteration or additional rule shall be set forth in a proclamation.”  Does this give President Obama the authority to allow his campaign to create the questionable items below?  If that is what has happened, is he overstepping and insulting the flag and country?

BTW, I could only find one or two things on the Romney site that even have a flag image in them.

Definitely over the top:

(i) The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever.

Pushing it:

176(h) The flag should never be used as a receptacle for receiving, holding, carrying, or delivering anything.

176(g) The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.

176(d) The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery.

Not so much:

Fast & Furious: IG's Report Committee Hearing 5

Discussion on recommendations.

(Breakfast Break)

9:38  Issa: 


Cummings:  Page 395.


9:40:  Issa's Closing Statement:  Concludes a major chapter.  We hope we'll see more cooperation tahn we have seen.  I hope most of 100,000 pages will be made available to Committee.  I hope our investigators can sit with Mr. Horowitz's to speed up the understanding.

Also, the Terry family need assurances.

I hope changes are made so that civil liberties around wiretaps are made.  I have better understanding that judges rely on wiretaps as almost complete decision and they rely on the honesty to the applicants.

Thanks to Mr. Horowitz and his team who worked tirelessly. 


Followup in the evening of Sept 20:

Not one of the mnajor netwoprks even mentioned that this House Oversight Committee meeting to accept the IG's Report occurred today.

UniVision TV interviewed Barack Obama today.  They actually asked him hard questions about F&F, perhas the first major news network to do so.  His answers got some of the results wrong, and obfuscated in a political sense others.  A sad performance.

On NRA News, Cam Edwards interview (3rd hour) with Trey Goudy was excellent and worth listening to for counterpoint and context going forward.

Fast & Furious: IG's Report Committee Hearing 4

Tim Walberg, R-Michigan:  Did your office have complete and unfettered access to document?  Horowitz:  Yes I believe so.  We got everything we asked for including personal emails.

Walberg:  You personally reviewed wiretap application?  Were you sick to stomach?  Horowitz:  After I read them I felt that there was more than enough red flags.

Walberg Is Holder agreeable to your recommendations?  Horowitz:  DOJ have indicated supportive of all the IG recommendations.

Trey Goudy: To clarify record.  AG held in contempt because the thwarted attempt sto get document, some of which he in now giving to Committee.


Why did Lanny Breuer forward draft of memo to personal email on Feb 4?  Horowitz:  Breuer said he didn't recall reading it.  Goudy:  Recall is different that I did read it.

9:13:  Issa:  When did the "Good job"  response come?  Hor:  During the drafting.  Issa:  Do you accept that he didn't read it?  Hor:  In review our standard was to put out facts , but didn't feel we could state he knew.  Issa:  Reach conclusion that the should have known?  Hor:  Regardless of if he read it or not, he should have followed up more.  Issa places email and letter traffic into record.

Sandy Adams, R-Florida:  I have LEO background.  What happened to the ATF agency to lose these wiretap protections?  Horowitz:  Don't recall dates but evolving practice to remove practices for a judge to grant wiretap can be provided.

Adams:  What is your impression when people say "cannot recall"?  Hor:  Probably means you were there, for Outlook invites etc.  My hesitation is that sometimes replies to email are somewhat automatic.

Adams:  Your friendship with Breuer?  Hor:  Zero imp[act onmy job on investoigation.

Goudy:  Is investigation still ongoing?  Horowitz:  Yes, pieces.   Goudy:  We havenever asserted AG knew, but that he should have known.  Did you make recommendations to ensure knowledge?  Horowitz:  As Ombudsman, he wants to ensure people come forward.

9:19  Issa:  Asked for documents about ?? before Feb 4.   Hor:  Clearly highly relevant to us.  Issa:  If you subpeona docs and they are not delivered, is that illegal.  Are you persuing criminal charges.,  Hor:  We are considering actions.

Issa:  Many people aware of Wide Reciever, and yet allowed F&F to do the same and more?  Hor:  No action apparent to change practice.

Issa:  Are you concerned about hundreds of people dead?  Is Fed Gov't exposed to damages?  It troubled us very much that so many people knew about it and no one took action, even deputy director Breuer.

Issa:  Breuer said to Issa in Committee that there was nothing wrong only that agents did bad work.  Did he say that to  you?  Hor:  I would have to review notes.

Elijah Cummings, D-Maryland:   My mother said, You can't have motion, commotion, emotion and not results.  This is one of those moments where something must change.  You have painted the picture for us.  I don;'t think Holder likes this picture.  I want to say I was involved in one of those moments where we did something.  (Asks questions about reforms.)

Fast & Furious: IG's Report Committee Hearing 3

Blake Farenthold, R-Texas:  Executive privelege is not unqualified.  How many of documents covered by Exec Priv?  Horowitz:  We looked at some of them, but I don't know which were covered.

Farenthold:  Kevin O'Reilly connection to White House?  Horowitz:  Did not get document from WH and his connection to WH. We were not able to follow up because Oreilly refused to cooperate with IG.

Farenthold:  Political motives about gun laws:  Horowitz:  We addressed motive about gun laws:  all of those incidents came after investigation began.  No evidence that F&F started out to do this , but latter on they discussed how F&F could be used to get laws changed.

Issa:  Reason to control gun dealers more?  Horowitz:  Law enforcement failed all around.

Lacy Clay, D-Missouri:  Acting ATF Director Ken Melson removed last year.  Since August of 2011, B. Todd Jones is Director of ATF.  Jones waiting for release of report to make further personnel actions.  Is this normal?  Horowitz:  Not sure I can speak to this.  Clay:  Did you make specific personnel recommendations?  Horowitz:  No, we simply reported on facts.

Clay: Yesterday AG announced retirement of Melson and resignation of Weinstein.  They and others referred to appropriate entities for possible action.  Did Committee move too soon, especially to censure AG?  Issa:  Contempt of AG was narrow for refusal to provide document s that IG used for report.  Remember, IG felt Committee should have gotten documents too.

James Lankford, R-Okla:  How to fix this?  Statement that gun walking is not to be done.  Why does ATF have different investigation process than FBI?  Page 337 - comment that ATF Phoenix over their head.  Is regulatory vs. criminal responsibility recommendation?  Horwoitz:  Yes, we do.  DOJ should have consistency between ATF, FBI, Marshalls Service, CBP.   DOJ must review for best practices. 

Lankford:  Bunker mentality after Grassely's letter?  May letter is not whole truth.  Cicrle wagons?  Horowitz:  We reached conclusion that by then they knew enough to not stand by the April and May letters.  They had made no substantive comments even when they knew of the federal nexus.  May cases where info flow was inadequate.

Mike Kelly, R-Pa:  How long does it take to do investiogation.  Why 18 months.  Horowitz:  Given volume of documents and scope to get through congressional responcses and to be fair and accurate, and I wanted reprot to be best possible.

Kelly:  Doesn't pass smell test.  Horowitz:  Way law is setup, we investigate and aG and public decides.

Kelly:  Stonewalling of Issa was political in nature.  Clear and Transparent Admin is not performing.  Where does buck stop?  AG appointed by President, but many people change and policies change according to philosophy of Admin.  Why so long to get basic information?  A whistle blower would probably decide, I'll never do that again.  Horowitz:  I have that concern precisely.  People who come forward should be assured they are safe.

Fast & Furious: IG's Report Committee Hearing 2

After an hour or so, my impression is that Horowitz has done a very good job, as far as it went.  I congratulate him and his staff.

The summary so far is that there were many breakdowns in bureaucratic oversight at eh Eric Holder, Lanny Breuer, Jason Weinstein (Lanny Breuer deputy), Gary Grindler, etc, all the way down to the Phoenix attorneys.  All involved seem incredulous that the AG wasn't told that F&F guns were involved in the death of Brian Terry.

Stephen Lynch asked if the report proves the AG "knew" about the gun walking.  The answer is that the report states they did not find evidence that he did.  But this is proving a negative.  It probably cannot be yet known if Holder knew or not.  "We struggled to understand how a operation of this importance was not briefed up."

Patrick Meehan R-Pen asked about why they kept discussing covering up what they were doing.  Horowitz said it appeared they were concerned about looking bad and not to preserve the public good.  Question about Mexico connection:  Weinstein should have known because he went to Mexico and the briefing he got seemed to have enough info in it.  The failure to inquire is the part people can't understand.  Where is the duty to inquire?  Horowitz:  There is why we have recommendation that Deputy AGs must review wiretaps.

Were the summary wiretap memoes sufficient"  Yes, they should have triggered more inverstigation by teh Detuy AGs.  There was a  large volume of wiretap apllications, which seems to be an excuse for poor review.  Horowitz:  Congress has provided the 4th Amend right being invaded with wiretaps.  Thus each application needs a sufficient review.  Wiretaps are "such a  significant event..."

Clraification of gun walking:

Dan Burton, R-Indiana: Did you know anything about the recent news report on emials that Tracy Smaller at DOJ Public affairs sent to Media Matters?  Horowitz:  I have seen news but have not investigated.

Issa: Please talk about whistle-blowers.  Hororwitz:  It takes a lot of courage to come forward. 
Issa: Does report vindicate them?  Hororwitz:  "It certainly does from my pint of view."  "I have put in place a whistle-blower ombudsman in my office."

Raul Labrador, R-Idaho:  Press saying Holder vindicated.  But the strawman agruement is that Holder's testimony was not in light of report.  He could have been lying.  Horowitz:  We didn't look at truthfulness of letters (Feb 4 letter was retracted and May 2 letter that is literately true but could be misleading) or question DOJ about what they did or didn't provide to the IG.  Labrador:  Would all the time spent by IG been necessary if DOJ had provided the same info to Congress?  Horowitz: It might have been different, maybe less hours spent. 

Ron Barber, R-AZ:  Thanks for report and for coming to AZ this week for dedication of Border Patrol Station to Brian Terry.  Brian's family still want to know what happened to Brian Terry and why and who is accountable.  (It took Holder months to even call the Terry Family and then only because of humiliation by the Committee.) 

Horowitz:  New supervisory review steps now in place.  New rules in place. 

Barber: Was family deliberately keep in dark.  Was this discussed in Dept?  Horowitz:  I don't recall seeing discussions of what to tell Terry family.

Barber:  Did US AG have orders to not interdict?  Horowitz: Both US AGs a and agents made tactical decision to not interdict.

Issa:  Was this exuberance of ambition for career moves?  Horowitz:  The wiretaps may have been evidence of that ambition.  Also, effort to keep ICE out of the operation may be evidence.

Fast & Furious: IG's Report Committee Hearing 1

The DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz is testifying now (see C-Span) to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Issa:  "This Committee has had a difficult relationship with Justice..."

Issa:  "Nothing in this report vindicates anyone.  If you touched..."  (paraphrasing) anything related to F&F and you didn't do something...you bear responsibility.

In his opening statement Horowitz says, "A pattern of serious failures..."  "Series of misguided tactics, strategies..." "Failure to respond accurately to Congressional Committee."  "Review conduct an performance of Department personnel."

A big part of the initial bad practices discussed is about wiretap application, where the IG found that senior Deputy AGs didn't review adequately the wiretap application that would have shown severe problems with the F&F and Wide Receiver operations.

Jason Chaffetz:  How could Ken Melson be in his position for 2 years and meet with Eric Holder only ONE time?  You are being soft on Lanny Breuer, head of Criminal Division.  Breuer advocated for F&F type activities in Mexico.  It takes ten months for DOJ to admit they did this.  I am also concerned there is a culture and environment where the truth was suppressed by fear - for instance no one communicated that an agent was dead.

As usual, Caroly Maloney opened her statements with a call for more gun control legislation.  For her, the F&F hearing is a simply a venue to attack the 2nd Amendment.  More relatately, she asked why this happened.  Horowitz answered that both Arizona ATF agents and Phoenix DOJ Attorneys agreed to continue the gun walking programs for F&F and Wide Receiver.  He says more oversight need to be put in place.  Also, deputy AGS need to review wiretap applications at DOJ, and to have a clear line for decisions.

Trey Goudy:  My optimism for a clear and thorough report rewarded by your report that we can trust.   I naively thought that DOJ was the independent entity that we could trust.  Your conclusion is that a competent person could could see problems?  Horowitz, Yes, a competent person "would have seen those red flags."

How does Lanny Breuer escape discipline?  Horowitz:  "Mr. Breuer knew about the gun walking in April 2010...He should have alerted others."

Eleanor Holmes Norton asked why this went on so long.  What have you found concerning the AG since he is the face of the investigation.  Did you speak with AG?  Yes.  Any evidence that Holder approved of gun walking tactics?  None that AG was aware before Sen Grassely's letter in April 2010.  Did Gary Grindler know?  Yes he was briefed but concluded that the briefing was sufficient to put him on notice.  He was never briefed again.  Any work going on to give new tools to prevent this in future?  I have been told of reforms needed in ATF.

Free Speech ala the United Nations Chief

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon today said that free speech has limits.  Read this article for the summary. 

See here:  u-n-chief-free-speech-has-limits

If the UN thinks free speech has limits (and they do), think about how they treat other fundamental rights, like self-defense or the US 2nd Amendment.  Yep, they hate any rights that don't issue from a government.

Fast & Furious: DOJ Inspector General's Report Issued Today

Well, if you were waiting to hear who authorized F&F, it appears you will be disappointed.  The IG's report does not say.  In 512 pages, it skates over or ignores many of the important questions about F&F.

What it did do was bring on the resignation of some of the key players in DOJ (Ken Melson who retired today and Jason Weinstein) who most reporters consider to be complicit in the bad decision-making.  The IG said that Lanny Breuer, Holder's deputy,  needs to be prosecuted.  So of course Eric Holder "dunked the football" with a gleeful exclamation that now "we know" what happened and I am exonerated!  Of course, it appears to be a CYA report by Holder's buddy the former IG, who left several months ago.  The current IG gets to take all the flak.

All along, the two most likely explanations for F&F have been:
1. We are unaware of what is happening in our department, or
2. We are stupid and screwed the pooch by executing a bad plan. 

It appears Eric Holder is going with 1.  That makes him the least curious AG ever about what happens in the real world and in his department.  How, as a human being, he could not be curious about how a Border Patrol agent died from a F&F gun is amazing.

Tomorrow's House Oversight Committee meeting, where the report is presented to Congress, promises to be "lively."

Far Fetched? In 1948? Or in 2012?

This cartoon is as pertinent today as it was in 1948.  Maybe much more so, for many of the crony-isms rampant now are stronger today than then.

This-cartoon-seemed-far-fetched-in-1948

Dollar Bill Symbology

This is an interesting story of the history and symbology on the United States $1 bill.

On the rear of the One Dollar bill, you will see two circles. Together, they comprise the Great Seal of the United States. The First Continental Congress requested that Benjamin Franklin and a group of men come up with a Seal. It took them four years to accomplish this task and another two years to get it approved.
 
If you look at the left-hand circle, you will see a Pyramid. Notice the face is lighted, and the western side is dark. This country was just beginning. We had not begun to explore the west or decided what we could do for Western Civilization. The Pyramid is uncapped, again signifying that we were not even close to being finished. Inside the Capstone you have the all-seeing eye, an ancient symbol for divinity. It was Franklin 's belief that one man couldn't do it alone, but a group of men, with the help of God, could do anything.

'IN GOD WE TRUST' is on this currency.

The Latin above the pyramid, ANNUIT COEPTIS, means,
'God has favored our undertaking.'

The Latin below the pyramid, NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM, means, 'a new order has begun.'

At the base of the pyramid is the Roman numeral for 1776. (MDCCLXXVI)

If you look at the right-hand circle, and check it carefully, you will learn that it is on every National Cemetery in the United States. It is also on the Parade of Flags Walkway at the Bushnell,
Florida National Cemetery , and is the centerpiece of most heroes' monuments. Slightly modified, it is the seal of the President of the United States , and it is always visible whenever he speaks, yet very few people know what the symbols mean.

The Bald Eagle was selected as a symbol for victory for two reasons:

First, he is not afraid of a storm; he is strong, and he is smart enough to soar above it.

Secondly, he wears no material crown. We had just broken
from the King of England.

Also, notice the shield is unsupported. This country can now stand on its own.

At the top of that shield there is a white bar signifying Congress, a unifying factor. We were coming together as one nation.

In the Eagle's beak you will read, ' E PLURIBUS UNUM'
meaning, 'from many - one.'

Above the Eagle, we have the thirteen stars, representing the thirteen original colonies, and any clouds of misunderstanding rolling away. Again, we were coming together as one.

Notice what the Eagle holds in his talons. He holds an olive branch and arrows. This country wants peace, but we will never be afraid to fight to preserve peace. The Eagle always wants to face the olive branch, but in time of war, his gaze turns toward the arrows.

An (untrue) old-fashioned belief says that the number 13 is an unlucky number. This is almost a worldwide belief. You will almost never see a room numbered 13, or any hotels or motels
with a 13th floor. But think about this:  America, which relies on God (not a number) to direct and lead, boldly chose:

13 original colonies,
13 signers of the Declaration of Independence,
13 stripes on our flag,
13 steps on the pyramid,

13 letters in 'Annuit Coeptis,'

13 letters in ' E Pluribus Unum,'
13 stars above the eagle,
13 bars on that shield,
13 leaves on the olive branch,

13 fruits,
and if you look closely,

13 arrows.

And finally, notice the arrangement of the 13 stars in the right-hand circle. You will see that they are arranged as a

Star of David.

This was ordered by George Washington who, when he asked Haym Solomon, a wealthy Philadelphia Jew, what he would like as a personal reward for his services to the Continental Army. Solomon said he wanted nothing for himself, but he would like something for his people.The Star of David was the result.

Few people know it was Solomon who saved the Army through his financial contributions...then died a pauper. Haym Solomon gave $25 million to save the Continental Army, money that was sorely needed to help realize America's our- freedom and independence from England.

Therein lies America's Judeo-Christian beginning.

Most American children do NOT know any of this. They are
not taught because their history teachers do NOT know this.

[They were not taught!]

On America's Freedom:

Too many veterans gave up too much to let the meaning fade.

Many veterans came home to an America that did not care.

Too many veterans never came home at all.

They served, they died for you and for me.

I hope you will share this page with many so they can learn about the UNITED STATES DOLLAR BILL, and what it stands for.