Is there Another Race Other Than the Human Race?

Christians cannot be racist. For there is only one race, the human race.

In the beginning God created the human race. Male and female created He them.

Then the evolutionists (1859 when Charles Darwin published his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life) rejecting God and having to come up with another theory for all that is around them, concocted a theory that all life began from innate materials. Over billions of years these life forms evolved into chimpanzees and gorillas. Then, according to the evolutionary theory, the gorillas became the Australoid race, then the Negroid race, then the Mongoloid race, and finally the Caucasoid race. So, when our news is being flooded today with terms such as “racism,” “racist,” “race wars,” etc., they are only perpetuating the evolutionist dogma.

The differences between one human being and another (members of the human race) are merely superficial. That is, it’s all on the surface. Humans are all the same inside.

different-shades

Posted in Cultural Barometer, Human rights, Humanism, Liberalism, News and politics, Political Correctness, Racism | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The Cure For Regulation Destabilization by Clyde Wayne Crews, Jr.

The Cure For Regulation Destabilization

This story appears in the June 30, 2014 issue of Forbes.

As promised, President Obama is ensuring that everyone’s electricity rates will “necessarily skyrocket” via new Environmental Protection Agency carbon dioxide emission rules that effectively wipe out new coal power and replace it with less efficient renewables.

Meanwhile, over at the Food & Drug Administration a new rule would regulate the serving size of breath mints. No more tyranny by Tic Tacs.

From regulating mints and food labeling, to systemic risk in banking and finance and, probably soon, insurance and cybersecurity, no aspect of American life remains untouched by bureaucrats and presidential decree.

That’s why wrestling down federal spending and taxation won’t suffice anymore. Regulations are equally as punitive.

Laws poster

In my annual report for the Competitive Enterprise Institute titled Ten Thousand Commandments: An Annual Snapshot of the Federal Regulatory State, I calculate that the cost of federal economic, environmental and health and safety regulation is around $1.86 trillion annually, based largely upon government data.

That’s more than half the size of President Obama’s recent $3.9 trillion federal budget proposal, and it’s greater than the entire federal budget was back in the 1990s.

If U.S. federal regulation were a country, it’d be the tenth largest, right there between Italy and India. For the typical family that regulatory cost amounts to $14,974 annually: 23% of average U.S. household income.

That $14,974 is more than the average household spends on health care, food, transportation, entertainment, clothes–on everything except housing. But we don’t officially measure regulations’ costs; we just add to the load.

The Federal Register, the daily depository of all Washington’s rules, was 79,311 pages long last year. Of the Register’s five highest annual page counts, four occurred under Obama.

And the numbers are staggering; 3,659 rules were issued last year, by 63 departments, agencies and commissions. Meanwhile, Congress passed and the President signed 72 laws.

That means there were 51 new regulations enacted in 2013 for every law passed by Congress. Most lawmaking is now done by the unelected.

Into this environment the White House’s Office of Management & Budget just released its annual Report to Congress on the Benefits & Costs of Federal Regulation.

Out of thousands of rules, guess how many regulations underwent a full cost-benefit analysis. Only seven. Less than half of one percent of the total.

As more of the economy becomes steered by Washington and cronyism, the traditional, democratic lawmaking process is further undermined.

Financial regulations make credit less available, energy regulations make energy less affordable, and labor regulations further reduce the ability of firms to hire new workers.

We can fix this. Politicians are transient, as can be their man-made rules. Mistakes can be undone.

A bipartisan, annual Regulatory Reduction Commission could weed out costly or extraneous rules. Congress could vote the commission’s findings up or down, without amendments.

And we could require that for every new regulation another must be eliminated. And the new rule must sunset or expire, unless Congress were to explicitly extend it. We also need a regulatory budget to cap the economic costs that federal agencies can impose.

And finally, every major regulation–one costing more than $100 million a year–ought to be approved by Congress, rather than merely imposed by bureaucrats. No more regulation without representation.

It would be nice to double GDP, instead of regulations. You don’t have to tell the grass to grow–you just need to take the rocks off of the grass. The time has come for us to take the rocks off of the U.S. economy.

Posted in Abuse of Power, Regulatory Agencies | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

With the stroke of a pen, the executive branch reigns supreme. by Ilan Wurman

L’État, C’est Moi

With the stroke of a pen, the executive branch reigns supreme

JUL 21, 2014, VOL. 19, NO. 42 • BY ILAN WURMAN

The administrative state is a modern invention. It was, and remains, a necessity in our complex modern age. Or so goes the argument.

Louis XIV

LOUIS XIV

“The trouble in early times was almost altogether about the constitution of government; and consequently that was what engrossed men’s thoughts,” wrote Woodrow Wilson in his Study of Administration (1887). “The functions of government were simple, because life itself was simple. .  .  . No one who possessed power was long at a loss how to use it.” That all changed—apparently in Wilson’s generation—when “present complexities of trade and perplexities of commercial speculation” posed new challenges for government.

“In brief,” Wilson wrote, “if difficulties of governmental action are to be seen gathering in other centuries, they are to be seen culminating in our own.” So we need experts: “[W]e have reached a time when administrative study and creation are imperatively necessary to the well-being of our governments saddled with the habits of a long period of constitution-making.”

Necessary; there is no alternative. As the Supreme Court has declared, “[I]n our increasingly complex society, replete with ever changing and more technical problems, Congress simply cannot do its job absent an ability to delegate power under broad general directives.”

That is a convenient narrative for the defenders of the administrative state. But it is fanciful. It is not historically accurate. And the justifications—especially the claim of necessity—are not new. Neither are the powers of the administrative state. Indeed, Philip Hamburger, professor of law at Columbia, argues here that it was precisely these justifications and powers that English and American constitutional law developed to protect us against. Not only is the modern administrative state unconstitutional, it is the very thing our Constitution sought to prevent.

There used to be terms to describe the conduct and powers of the modern administrative state. When the Obama administration issues waivers to favored companies excusing them from some health care regulations, our English ancestors would have called it the dispensing power. When the administration decides that it will no longer enforce certain immigration laws, our ancestors would have called that the suspending power. When the president issues executive orders that make law—or more commonly, when his administration promulgates rules that bind individuals—they would have called that prerogative lawmaking.

When administrative agencies, which are not courts of law, issue binding orders to appear and testify; when they command homes, businesses, and records to be kept open for inspection; when they require businesses to self-report regulatory violations; when they bind subjects without juries or independent judges—there were terms for such actions, too. They were general warrants and writs of assistance. They were self-incrimination and ex officio proceedings. They were Star Chamber and the High Commission.

They were tyranny.

“The history of administrative law,” writes Hamburger, “reaches back many centuries.”

It is thus not a coincidence that administrative law looks remarkably similar to the sort of governance that thrived long ago in medieval and early modern England under the name of “prerogative.” .  .  . Administrative law thus turns out to be not a uniquely modern response to modern circumstances, but the most recent expression of an old and worrisome development.

Hamburger meticulously (and sometimes laboriously) demonstrates how the modern administrative state revives all the attributes of the royal prerogative and absolute power. Even in the details, modern administrative law is shockingly reminiscent of 16th- and 17th-century royal conduct.

Today, for example, administrative agencies claim statutory authority to create rules—that is, to make law—where constitutionally enacted statutes are ambiguous. Agencies “interpret” their own statutes, and courts give those interpretations deference. King James I argued that he had the same powers as his common law judges to interpret law and that they must defer to his interpretation.

What has changed?

The similarity is important in its more general contours. Hamburger explains that administrative power is a power exercised outside the law: It is created outside the established constitutional procedures. It is also a power exercised above the law: It excuses both the executive and subjects from following law, as with the dispensing power (i.e., waivers). And finally, it is a consolidated power: The otherwise-separate legislative, judicial, and executive powers are combined—which, Hamburger writes, is the traditional understanding of absolute power.

It is also unconstitutional. There is no constitutional provision granting the president power to dispense with particular health care regulations for certain companies. The Constitution establishes only three powers: the legislative power to make the law, the judicial power to adjudicate cases in accord with the law, and the executive power to execute the law. “None of these powers includes any authority to excuse persons from law,” Hamburger writes. “The power to exclude from law was the old dispensing power, and it simply does not exist in the Constitution.”

Administrative adjudications that bind the parties are also unconstitutional. When Parliament abolished the Star Chamber during the English Civil War, it declared that the property of the subject “ought to be tried and determined in the ordinary courts of justice and by the ordinary course of the law.” Our Constitution “even more clearly located judicial power in the courts,” writes Hamburger, and the Framers thereby “emphatically reiterated the constitutional bar to any extralegal adjudication.” And yet today, the executive branch—“like the Crown in the early 17th century”—enforces its own rules in its own tribunals.

The arguments for administrative power always rely on necessity. But no one has ever proved that, somehow, society is too complex for judicial warrants and lawmaking by constitutional means. Do we really need experts to create regulations? Does Congress not have the expertise to tackle “ever changing and more technical problems” in an “increasingly complex” society? Maybe so.

But there is an easy solution. If experts are needed, there is no dearth of them. Why not have these experts in administrative agencies propose their regulations as legislation for Congress to enact? That would be no different from the current process of administrative rulemaking—except that it would be democratic. It would require political will and popular support. And that is precisely why many liberals would oppose such a modest proposal.

But there is something even more fundamental about “necessity” and social “complexity.” The administrative state is a poor way to handle the complexity that has justified its exist-ence all along. The administrative state assumes that it has reached answers to questions that ultimately might not have scientific conclusions. Federal agencies, thus, “have difficulty keeping up to date with science,” because their particularized controls for particularized problems are inflexible and cannot adapt to technological change.

Administrative law depends on epistemological arrogance, assuming that there is one right answer to a given problem. But our entire society (like all free-market societies) presupposes that there exists a diversity of opinions, objectives, and needs. It is precisely in an “increasingly complex” society that there is no one-size-fits-all answer.

If the tendency of modernized society is toward freedom or at least social fragmentation, then continual direction by the federal government may actually be inconsistent with modernity.

Maybe humility—and constitutional government—are better after all.

Ilan Wurman is clerk to Judge Jerry E. Smith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Posted in Death of a Nation, Executive Branch, Only Congress shall make law, Progressives, Strip Agencies of Power | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

A Foreign Policy Crisis in America: by Dr. Jim Eckman

A Foreign Policy Crisis in America: Russia, the Middle East and the Obama Administration

Aug 9th, 2014 | By  | Category: Featured IssuesPolitics & Current Events

Robert Kagan, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, recently wrote that “the willingness of the United States to use force to defend its interests and the liberal world order has been an essential and unavoidable part of sustaining the world order since World War II.  It is also an essential part of effective diplomacy . . .  The question today is finding the right balance between when to use force and when not to.”  Has President Obama found that right balance?  Most major analysts are skeptical that he has.  Perhaps foreign editor of the German newspaper, Die Welt, Clemens Wergin, has captured the essence of Obama’s approach to foreign policy:  “While Mr. Obama’s new style of diplomacy—soft power and nonintervention—was at first seen as a welcome break with the Bush years, five years later a dismal realization has set in.  It turns out that soft power cannot replace hard power.  On the contrary, soft power is merely a complementary foreign policy tool that can yield results only when it is backed up by real might and the political will to employ it if necessary . . . Because if America stays out of the fray, there are many others who will fill the void:  Bashar al-Assad, Hezbollah, Iran, Russia; the list of actors and countries that are actively pushing against European and American interests, and getting away with it, grows even longer.”  How did this occur?  What has been happening over the last five years that has produced this problematic situation for the world?

When President Obama took office, he made clear that foreign policy for the US was going to change.  His strategy was to gradually withdraw from Europe and the Middle East, because America must focus on “nation-building at home.”  Further, he posited a “pivot to Asia,” a region that had been neglected by the US and desperately needed US military and diplomatic attention.  He stated, “Here we see the future.”  Fred Hiatt, editorial page editor for theWashington Post, summarizes the action points of Obama’s foreign policy over the last five years:

  • All US troops were withdrawn from Iraq.  Despite the tension with the al-Maliki government, Obama did not push for American troop presence and was clearly content with the zero option, believing that Iraq’s prospects for stability were good without American presence.
  • As Syria descended into civil war, Obama determined that the risks of providing air support, weapons or training moderate rebels outweighed any potential gains.  In fact, he confidently predicted the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad.
  • After bombing Libyan forces to depose Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi, Obama declined to send trainers or other support to the new Libyan government.
  • When Syria’s Assad gassed 1,400 Syrian civilians to death, Obama declared that Assad had violated civilized norms and crossed his (i.e., Obama’s) red line.  He asked for Congress to approve a military response, but quickly shelved that request in favor of a deal, brokered by Russian President Vladimir Putin, for Assad to hand over all of his chemical weapons.
  • Therefore, with all of these decisions, “Obama’s determination to gear down in Europe and the Middle East, regardless of circumstances, guaranteed that the United States would not respond strategically to new opportunities (e.g., the Arab Spring) or dangers (e.g., Putin’s determination to redraw the map of Europe).”  To be specific, as the Arab Spring unfolded and Middle Eastern people began demanding more democratic participation and freedoms, governments changed and hope for real change mounted.  But the US had disengaged from the Middle East.  Hiatt suggests that “if the United States had taken the lead, Europe and America together could have offered trade, investment, exchange and cultural opportunities to help bring the region into the modern, democratic world.  But for Obama the tumult in Egypt and elsewhere was a distraction, not a once-in-a-generation opportunity.  The West responded timidly and inconsistently, and the moment was lost.”
  • Consider developments in Russia:  Obama and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, argued for a “reset” strategy with Russia.  But, when it became obvious that Putin was not interested, the West had no strategic response.  [Putin’s goal is to re-create the Russian empire founded on an autocratic state linked with the Russian Orthodox Church.]  Hiatt: “Obama could have bolstered a unified Europe with military, diplomatic and trade measures.  Instead, as Putin wrecked democracy in Russia, annexed Crimea and fomented war in Ukraine, Obama and his European counterparts were reactive and divided.
  • His policy in Iraq has been a disaster.  Obama’s generals adamantly argued for 15,000 troops to remain in Iraq for training and counterterrorism purposes.  But the US totally withdrew and the result is that the US has no leverage and radical terrorists have seized the central part of the country.  Further, with Obama’s refusal to even help the moderates in the Syrian civil war, they are in retreat, Assad’s position has somewhat improved, while the radical Islamic extremists (ISIS) are now governing sections of both Syria and Iraq.
  • Finally, even in Asia (remember the “pivot”), allied leaders there express deep doubts about US commitment—and the reason they cite is Obama’s “red line” debacle in Syria.

Obama’s foreign policy has been a veritable disaster and the US position in the world is weakened by its loss of credibility.  This is especially acute because the world order that emerged after the end of the Cold War is disintegrating.  A new, chaotic, Post-Cold War world is emerging and the US is not effectively leading in this chaotic era.  Obama’s disengagement from Europe and his infamous “pivot to Asia” have ended up serving neither continent well.  Furthermore, the basic structure and order of the Middle East that was a product of both World War I (the Sykes-Picot Agreement) and World War II (the end of both the British and French Mandates in the Middle East) are also coming apart—and no one is certain what the new order will look like.  With the US so disengaged in the region, we have lost almost all significant influence in the region.  (Witness the current Hamas-Israeli conflict.  Neither side is really taking the US seriously.)  A new world order is coming together before our eyes, and America’s diminished role is part of the problem, not the solution.

Recently, the Wall Street Journal editorially observed that “The greatest foreign-policy failing of this Presidency is that he refuses to see that the world has bad actors . . . [H]e refuses to admit or explain that certain countries are responsible for the consequences [of aggression] and must be opposed.”  Currently, the US, under President Obama, no longer has the will or the credibility to give moral leadership to the world.

See editorial in the Wall Street Journal (19-20 July 2014); Peter Baker, “Crises Cascade and Converge, Testing Obama,” in www.nytimes (23 July 2014); Fred Hiatt, “Obama’s Foreign Policy Reveals the Effects of Disengagement,” in www.washingtonpost.com (28 July 2014); Clemens Wergin, “America’s European President,”Wall Street Journal (9 July 2014); and Robert Kagan, “US Needs a Discussion on When, Not Whether, to Use Force,” in www.washingtonpost.com (16 July 2014). PRINT PDFdiggfacebookgoogle_buzzmyspaceredditstumbletwitter

Posted in Foreign Policy, Society at Risk | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

No longer the brain-washed Obamabot

Georgia Voices: Yesterday’s ‘Obamabot’ has gotten an education
by The Augusta Chronicle
August 05, 2014
 obamabots-kool-aid

The woman who became an Internet sensation in 2008 for gushing Barack Obama would pay her gasoline and mortgage bills is back in the spotlight.

But this time, Peggy Joseph is no longer the brain-washed Obamabot she appeared to be back then.

Joseph, who recently was interviewed for an upcoming documentary, said she was caught up in the historic moment and wasn’t thinking clearly when she famously said after an Obama rally that she would no longer have to worry “about putting gas in my car. I won’t have to worry about paying my mortgage. If I help him, he’s going to help me.”

In the new film, “There’s No Place Like Utopia,” Joseph is interviewed at her suburban home, where she is a soccer mom of four and a working nurse.

The film chronicles people living in progressive-controlled cities such as Detroit, Chicago and Newark, N.J.

“At that time, we needed a change, but a change for the better, not the worse,” said Joseph, who, contrary to her 2008 what-can-the-government-do-for-me attitude, claims to have never been on government assistance.

Joseph, the daughter of Haitian immigrants, said she has become more educated on politics in the six years since she became a YouTube phenom.

Whereas she once viewed Obama as a sort of national Santa Claus, she now compares him to The Wizard of Oz.

“Truth and honesty are important,” Joseph says in the film. “He lied about everything. Just like the Wizard of Oz, Obama has turned out to be nothing more than a man behind a curtain.”

With polls showing the percentage of Americans who “strongly approve” of Obama’s job performance regularly trending below 30 percent, Joseph apparently isn’t the only one with buyer’s remorse.

One can only hope she, and others lured by false liberal promises, won’t get fooled again.

Read more: The Marietta Daily Journal – Georgia Voices Yesterday s Obamabot has gotten an education

Posted in Obama | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Is Thinking Obsolete? by Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell

In an age when scientists are creating artificial intelligence, too many of our educational institutions seem to be creating artificial stupidity.

Some have said that we are living in a post-industrial era, while others have said that we are living in a post-racial era. But growing evidence suggests that we are living in a post-thinking era.

Many people in Europe and the Western Hemisphere are staging angry protests against Israel’s military action in Gaza. One of the talking points against Israel is that far more Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israeli military attacks than the number of Israeli civilians killed by the Hamas rocket attacks on Israel that started this latest military conflict.

Are these protesters aware that vastly more German civilians were killed by American bombers attacking Nazi Germany during World War II than American civilians killed in the United States by Hitler’s forces?

Talk show host Geraldo Rivera says that there is no way Israel is winning the battle for world opinion. But Israel is trying to win the battle for survival, while surrounded by enemies. Might that not be more important?

Has any other country, in any other war, been expected to keep the enemy’s civilian casualties no higher than its own civilian casualties? The idea that Israel should do so did not originate among the masses but among the educated intelligentsia.

In an age when scientists are creating artificial intelligence, too many of our educational institutions seem to be creating artificial stupidity.

It is much the same story in our domestic controversies. We have gotten so intimidated by political correctness that our major media outlets dare not call people who immigrate to this country illegally “illegal immigrants.”

Geraldo Rivera has denounced the Drudge Report for carrying news stories that show some of the negative consequences and dangers from allowing vast numbers of youngsters to enter the country illegally and be spread across the country by the Obama administration.

Some of these youngsters are already known to be carrying lice and suffering from disease. Since there have been no thorough medical examinations of most of them, we have no way of knowing whether, or how many, are carrying deadly diseases that will spread to American children when these unexamined young immigrants enter schools across the country.

The attack against Matt Drudge has been in the classic tradition of demagogues. It turns questions of fact into questions of motive. Geraldo accuses Drudge of trying to start a “civil war.”

Back when masses of immigrants from Europe were entering this country, those with dangerous diseases were turned back from Ellis Island. Nobody thought they had a legal or a moral “right” to be in America or that it was mean or racist not to want our children to catch their diseases.

Even on the less contentious issue of minimum wage laws, there are the same unthinking reactions.

Although liberals are usually gung ho for increasing the minimum wage, there was a sympathetic front page story in the July 29th San Francisco Chronicle about the plight of a local non-profit organization that will not be able to serve as many low-income minority youths if it has to pay a higher minimum wage. They are seeking some kind of exemption.

Does it not occur to these people that the very same thing happens when a minimum wage increase applies to profit-based employers? They too tend to hire fewer inexperienced young people when there is a minimum wage law.

This is not breaking news. This is what has been happening for generations in the United States and in other countries around the world.

One of the few countries without a minimum wage law is Switzerland, where the unemployment rate has been consistently less than 4 percent for years. Back in 2003, The Economist magazine reported that “Switzerland’s unemployment neared a five-year high of 3.9% in February.” The most recent issue shows the Swiss unemployment rate back to a more normal 3.2 percent.

Does anyone think that having minimum wage laws and high youth unemployment is better? In fact, does anyone think at all these days?

Posted in Austrian Economics, Cultural Barometer, Death of Western Culture, News and politics, Political Correctness, Progressives, Public Education, Society at Risk | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

How not to choose a president, by Herman Cain

aa4122092adebate

The country is not doing well, and that has a lot to do with the fact that the president we did select should have been clearly recognized as not up to the task. And yet the majority of those who voted didn’t recognize that (although it seems a majority does now). Why is that?

I think it’s because the criteria we use in determining who should be our president makes little sense, and has little to do with the actual job the chief executive is responsible for doing.

As the chief executive of the federal government, the president is responsible for faithfully executing the laws, for responsibly budgeting and overseeing the use of the Treasury’s resources, of leading and managing a team of high-level executives, of working with Congress on proposed legislation, and of serving as commander in chief of the Armed Forces.

Obviously it matters what the president’s political philosophies are, but that sinks almost into irrelevance if he or she cannot competently perform the functions listed above.

With that in mind, let’s consider the dynamics that led to the matchup we saw in 2012. In the Republican primary race, we had a series of people rise to the top and then fall back. Rick Santorum was the choice of social conservatives. Ron Paul was the choice of libertarians. Newt Gingrich was the choice of those who saw themselves as more intellectual and spoiling for a fight with the Democrats. For a while, Herman Cain was the choice of a grassroots group that liked his business experience and 9-9-9 plan.

Eventually we settled on Mitt Romney after all of the above fell by the wayside for one reason or another, in spite of the fact that there really wasn’t a group rabidly supporting him. He was just the last person standing, which is sort of ironic because Mitt’s background was about as strong as anyone’s with respect to the qualifications I outlined above. (And for the record, I think he would have been a very good president.)

But we weren’t talking about any of those things during the campaign. We were talking about who got off what zinger in a debate, or who committed a “gaffe,” or who was rated as more conservative by this or that interest group, or who was put on the defense by a real or imagined “scandal.” We really never talked about who was ready for the exceedingly difficult executive challenges of the presidency. The political press wasn’t interested in that question, and the candidates (often at the behest of their campaign strategists) choose to “stay on point” talking about other things.

Meanwhile, the Democrats were perfectly happy with President Obama – not because he was running the government skillfully but because he was looking out for their political interests. They had chosen him four years earlier in what became little more than a pandering contest over whether we would “make history” by electing a black man or a woman. Obama was able to give inspiring speeches, I guess, and he still thinks that’s a governing strategy. No one else seems to think it’s working very well.

Lost in all this is any thought about who is actually capable of leading – of performing the executive functions inherent to the office. Prior to becoming president, Obama had never held any executive position whatsoever. If he had been applying for an executive job at any company, he would have been laughed out of the interview room as hopelessly unqualified. Yet he was able to get himself elected president of the United States – once and then again.

That can only have happened because the way we choose presidents makes no sense whatsoever. We reward political performance, not executive achievement, when we choose the top executive for our nation. Then we are troubled when the president looks more like a politician giving a performance than like a serious executive who knows how to lead and get things done.

If someone wanted to write a book titled, “How Not to Choose a President,” it could actually be a pretty short book. All it would have to say is: The way we do it now.

Posted in Death of a Nation, Management, Politics | Tagged , | Leave a comment