It’s Time to Withdraw Support of Pakistan

The Obama administration is considering a massive reduction in foreign aid to Pakistan — and I am quite unhappy to be in agreement with the withdrawal of support to the failed Pakistani government.

The Pakistani’s have supported the Taliban and Al Qaeda terrorist movements in Afghanistan, keeping that nation destabilized and poor in order to provide continued justification for American aid to Pakistan. We have recently caught the Pakistani ISI notifying the enemy of our troop movements on four separate occasions. The Pakistani government arrested the brave Pakistani’s who helped us take down Osama bin Laden. Clearly, the Pakistani’s are not our good friends.

I do not make these statements lightly. I call for guidance on the late great Barry Goldwater, who wrote the following in his landmark book, The Conscience of a Conservative:

We should adopt a discriminating foreign aid policy. American aid should be furnished only to friendly, anti-communist nations that are willing to join with us in the struggle for freedom. Moreover, our aid should take the form of loans or technical assistance, not gifts. And we should insist, moreover, that such nations contribute their fair share to the common cause.

If you change “communist” for “Islamist” or “terrorist”, the right path is clear. Pakistan is not operating as a friendly, anti-terrorist nation that is willing to join with us in the struggle for freedom.

It is time for Pakistanis to pay their fair share for the defense of their homeland against the Islamist terrorists who infest their countryside like so many rodents. Only then will the people of Pakistan realize who their real enemies are. Our sheltering them from Al Qaeda has only caused them to grow more fond of Al Qaeda. Our work in Pakistan is done; it’s time for us to saddle up and move on.

Your $278,000 Job

I keep staring at the article Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job and I cannot get over the shock of thinking just how off-course America has become. The article describes how a report from the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors documents that the “stimulus” has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs, at a cost of $666 billion. A quick bit of math shows that this is $278,000 per job.

This report is from the White House, from three economists who were hand picked by Barry Obama and who work for Barry Obama. This is the optimistic estimate.

I am very near to speechlessness as I contemplate the absolute horror of these numbers. President Obama doubled the national debt to enact this “stimulus” and the resulting federal deficit caused unemployment to stay above 9% for 24 of the last 26 months. The stimulus seriously injured American business and destroyed the wealth of millions of Americans — and it saved only 2.4 million jobs — and those only temporarily. The Democratic Party traded temporary jobs for permanent debt. It would have been less expensive to pay those 2.4 million people to stay home, or go to college, or go build farms in Africa.

Thomas Jefferson wrote “I am for a government rigorously frugal and simple. Were we directed from Washington when to sow, when to reap, we should soon want bread.” It looks like Jefferson was correct and that we shall soon find ourselves in the position of wanting bread. This is the change we voted for, now where is our hope?

Barry Goldwater on Islamic Terrorism

The following is an excerpt from Barry Goldwater’s world-changing book, The Conscience of a Conservative.

In this excerpt, I have taken the liberty of replacing each reference to the Communist threat with a reference to the Islamist threat.

This plan, which Barry Goldwater laid out in 1960, was used by Ronald Reagan in the 1980′s to lead us to victory over the Soviet empire.

Barry’s timeless wisdom shows us both the path to victory and the steps which we must take in order to follow that path.

Our Goal Must Be Victory

1. The key guidepost is the Objective, and we must never lose sight of it. It is not to wage a struggle against Islamic terrorism, but to win it.

2. Our strategy must be primarily offensive in nature. Given the dynamic, revolutionary character of the enemy’s challenge, we cannot win merely by trying to hold our own. In addition to guarding our frontiers, we must try to puncture his. In addition to keeping the free world free, we must try to make the Islamic world free. To these ends, we must always try to engage the enemy at times and places, and with weapons, of our own choosing.

3. We must strive to achieve and maintain military superiority. Mere parity will not do. Since we can never match the Islamists in manpower, our equipment and weapons must more than offset his advantage in numbers. We must also develop a limited war capacity. For the latter purpose, we should make every effort to achieve decisive superiority in small, clean nuclear weapons.

4. We must make America economically strong. We have already seen why economic energy must be released from government strangulation if individual freedom is to survive. Economic emancipation is equally imperative if the nation is to survive. America’s maximum economic power will be forged, not under bureaucratic direction, but in freedom.

5. In all of our dealings with foreign nations, we must behave like a great power. Our national posture must reflect strength and confidence and purpose, as well as good will. We need not be bellicose, but neither should we encourage others to believe that American rights can be violated with impunity. We must protect American nationals and American property and American honor – everywhere. We may not make foreign people like us – no nation has ever succeeded in that – but we can make them respect us. And respect is the stuff of which enduring friendships and firm alliances are made.

6. We should adopt a discriminating foreign aid policy. American aid should be furnished only to friendly, anti-terrorist nations that are willing to join with us in the struggle for freedom. Moreover, our aid should take the form of loans or technical assistance, not gifts. And we should insist, moreover, that such nations contribute their fair share to the common cause.

7. We should declare the world Islamist movement an outlaw in the community of civilized nations. Accordingly, we should withdraw diplomatic recognition from all Islamist governments, thereby serving notice on the world that we regard such governments as neither legitimate nor permanent.

8. We should encourage the captive peoples to revolt against their Islamist rulers. This policy must be pursued with caution and prudence, as we as courage. For while our enslaved friends must be told that we are anxious to help them, we should discourage premature uprisings that have no chance of success. The freedom fighters must understand that the time and place and method of such uprisings will be dictated by the needs of an overall world strategy. To this end we should establish close liaison with underground leaders in the Islamic world, furnishing them with printing presses, radios, weapons, instructors: the paraphernalia of a full-fledged Resistance.

9. We should encourage friendly peoples that have the means and desire to do so the undertake offensive operations for the recovery of their homelands. For example, should a revolt occur inside Iran, we should encourage and support guerrilla operations in Iran by the free Iranians. Should the situation develop favorably, we should encourage the Iraqi’s to join free Iranian forces in a combined effort to liberate the enslaved peoples of Asia.

This is hard counsel. But it is hard, I think, not for what it says, but for saying it openly. Such a policy involves the risk of war? Of course; but any policy, short of surrender, does that. Any policy that successfully frustrates the Islamist’s aim of world domination runs the risks that the Islamists will choose to lose in a kamikaze-finish. It is hard counsel because it frankly acknowledges that war may be the price of freedom, and thus intrudes on our national complacency. But is it really so hard when it goes on to search for the most likely means of safeguarding both our lives and our freedom? Is it so hard when we think of the risks that were taken to create our country? – risk on which our ancestors openly and proudly staked their “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor.” Will we do less to save our country?

The risks I speak of are risks on our terms, instead of on Islamist terms. We, not they, would select a time and place for a test of wills. We, not they would have the opportunity to bring maximum strength to bear on that test. They, not we, would have to decide between fighting for limited objectives under unfavorable circumstances, or backing down. And these are immense advantages.

The future, as I see it, will unfold along one of two paths. Either the Islamists will retain the offensive; will lay down one challenge after another; will invite us in local crisis after local crisis to choose between all-out war and limited retreat; and will force us, ultimately, to surrender or accept war under the most disadvantageous circumstances. Or we will summon the will and the means for taking the initiative, and wage a war of attrition against them – and hope, therefore, to bring about the internal disintegration of the Islamist governments. On course runs the risk of war, and leads, in any case, to probably defeat. The other runs the risk of war, and holds forth the promise of victory. For Americans who cherish their lives, but their freedom more, the choice cannot be difficult.

Obama Plans Fresh Assault on the Second Amendment

It appears that Barack Obama now realizes that he is a one-term president. His destruction of the U.S. economy, whether due to incompetence or malice, has lowered his approval ratings to the point where his reelection is almost impossible. The down-side to this is that it gives Obama, as a lame-duck president, the political ability to do whatever he wants — because he has nothing to lose.

As our government was originally designed, the separation of powers keeps a power-hungry president in check. The legislative branch must vote in all legislation, which prevents any one individual from doing too much damage. However, the government we have now does not operate as it was designed by our founding fathers. The courts have allowed the president to issue what as called “executive orders” — which have the power of law.

News of Obama’s preparation for an assault on the Second Amendment was leaked by Obama spokesman Jay Carney, who stated that newest outrage would be made public “in the near future.”

Carney stated “That process is well under way at the Department of Justice, with stakeholders on all sides working through these complex issues, and we expect to have some more specific announcements in the near future.” Apparently these “stakeholders” don’t include you and I. They only include government employees — who are protected by heavily-armed security professionals.

Obama’s executive order will no doubt be unconstitutional, which will lead inevitably to years of fighting in the federal courts — at enormous costs to both Americans and their (nominal) government. During the years that the executive order stands, American citizens will become even more inured to living without the rights once guaranteed by their Constitution. This may be the goal of the entire exercise.

Unemployment Rises Again

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported another rise in the unemployment rate, from 9.1% in May to 9.2% in June. The unemployment rate has now been above 9% for twenty-four of the last twenty-six months. Government economists had estimated that the private sector would add 120,000 jobs in June, instead only 18,000 were added.

There are now 982,000 discouraged workers in America. These are workers who have given up on the prospect of finding employment. Another 2.7 million Americans are unemployed, but have not actively searched for work in the last four weeks. Neither of these categories are included in the official unemployment rate.

6.3 million Americans have been looking for work for more than six months. This represents 44.4% of the unemployed — a new record. These are the Americans who are losing their homes to foreclosure due to the gross mismanagement of the economy by the federal government.

At the same time, average hourly wages also fell as did the average number of hours worked by each employed person. This means that even those Americans who do have jobs are earning less.

President Obama seems able to acknowledge the problem, while at the same time being unable to see how it is a result of decisions he has made. The President stated, “Our economy as a whole just isn’t producing nearly enough jobs for everybody who’s looking.” What he isn’t admitting is that unemployment has never been so high so long after the official end of a recession. At the same point after the last three recessions, unemployment averaged only 6.8%.

Due to Obama’s mismanagement of the economy, there is no sign of a recovery. Almost no new jobs have been created in the last year. BLS data showed approximately 139,882,000 Americans employed in June of last year and 140,129,000 Americans employed in June of this year. In one year, we have seen a net growth of only 247,000 jobs. The economy must add 125,000 to 150,000 jobs per month simply to keep up with population growth.

Here’s what some economists are saying about the June job report:

• “This is a big bucket of very cold water.” — Ian Shepherdson, chief U.S. economist at High Frequency Economics
• “We don’t have the orders, we don’t have the production [to create more jobs]” — John Silvia, chief economist at Wells Fargo.
• “June’s employment report doesn’t have a single redeeming feature. It’s awful from start to finish.” — Paul Ashworth, economist at Capital Economics

Heterosexuals Opting Out of Marriage

For the first time ever, the Census Bureau now reports than fewer than fifty percent of American households include a married couple.  The Census Bureau’s Average Number of People per Household, by Race and Hispanic Origin, Marital Status, Age, and Education of Householder: 2010 reports shows that only 58,410,000 out of 117,538,000 American households list “Married Couple” as their family type.

This data is even more startling when you consider that the “great recession”  has forced many people to move back in with their parents.  In addition, the recession has lowered the divorce rate as many couples realize that they cannot afford to separate and support two households.

One governmental reason for the decrease of married couples is the “marriage penalty”.  The marriage penalty is a higher tax rate charged to married couples since 1969. The penalty, however, applies only two couples with two working spouses who are both earning an above-average income — people who would not normally be expected to stay single in order to avoid a $1,380/yr (average in 1996 dollars) tax increase.

Instead, the main reason heterosexual couples appear to be avoiding marriage is because the institution of marriage has become corrupted beyond use by government interference.  Marriage was, at one time, a religious institution.  It is now a legal arrangement approved and adjudicated by the state.  Instead of being a relationship between a man and a woman, marriage is now a relationship between two people and their government.

American homosexuals are now rushing forward in a mad dash for government approval of their relationships.  It probably won’t be until they discover that they are now giving $1,380/yr more to the government that they start to realize the downsides to their desire for acceptance.  It probably won’t be until they start paying $40k legal bills to divorce lawyers that they really learn what it is like to be heterosexual in America.