But seriously, the only thing keeping this guy from being thrown in the slammer is fear of TSA agents being unable to destroy the evidence because he is broadcasting live on his phone.

Watch.

Thanks especially to Terry at Checkpoint USA for getting the Free Keene videos on my radar.

But the signs were available all along. Remember the “debates” in 2008 when Obama talked about unilateral strikes on targets in Pakistan? Remember when both Clinton and Obama said “all options are on the table” with regard to Iran in December 2007? How about in July 2007, when Obama said we should focus on Afghanistan? I will quote myself from last year:

Please, voters, wake up and realize our foreign policy will not change with either of the establishment candidates. Our monetary policy will not even be spoken about by either of the establishment candidates. Our fiscal irresponsibility will not be addressed by either of the establishment candidates. The national debt will grow with either Obama or McCain. Troops will be sent all over the world with either McCain or Obama. Our civil liberties will disappear with either candidate.

Foreign policy does not change with a party label change. We will not withdraw from the East until the US is forced to by the inability to pay soldiers or to buy them supplies. Please consider Daniel Ellsberg’s prediction from last month.

I might add that Ellsberg was spot on with the idea that people were imagining Vietnam could have been won and the leadership would like to get it right this time. Newsweek’s cover last week is testament to that (if I could only find a link…).

Obama is supposed to deliver a speech today, announcing both an increase in troops and an exit for Afghanistan.
From VOA:

In a few hours, President Barack Obama unveils a new U.S. plan for winning the eight-year war in Afghanistan. The president is expected to announce a substantial troop increase, while also mapping out a path to bring America’s military involvement in Afghanistan to an end.

The increase in troops will happen. The exit will also happen, but not in the time frame he is talking about, and for economic reasons, not because it was planned. There is no planned exit.

July 2007:

May 2008:

The CARS Web site heralded a major success:

The enormously successful CARS program helped consumers who turned in gas guzzlers buy nearly 700,000 more fuel efficient vehicles in fewer than 30 days. By late September the U.S. Department of Transportation paid all eligible and complete dealer transactions. “There can be no doubt that this program drummed up more business, for more people, in more places at a time when our economy needed help the most,” said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. DOT continues to work with the few remaining dealers who have outstanding submissions to try and correct any errors so payment can be made.

I see it differently. The CPI figures released this morning show that new and used car prices rose in October, by 1.4 and 3.6 percent, respectively, which is an order of magnitude greater than nearly every other category on the list. Car prices rose due to the nearly 700,000 destroyed cars plus government redistribution checks.

Edmund’s has quite a story:

SANTA MONICA, Calif. — October 28, 2009 — Edmunds.com, the premier resource for online automotive information, has determined that Cash for Clunkers cost taxpayers $24,000 per vehicle sold.

Nearly 690,000 vehicles were sold during the Cash for Clunkers program, officially known as CARS, but Edmunds.com analysts calculated that only 125,000 of the sales were incremental. The rest of the sales would have happened anyway, regardless of the existence of the program.

We’ll leave it with the Wall Street Journal’s sound criticism:

Remember “cash for clunkers,” the program that subsidized Americans to the tune of nearly $3 billion to buy a new car and destroy an old one? Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood declared in August that, “This is the one stimulus program that seems to be working better than just about any other program.”

If that’s true, heaven help the other programs. Last week U.S. automakers reported that new car sales for September, the first month since the clunker program expired, sank by 25% from a year earlier. Sales at GM and Chrysler fell by 45% and 42%, respectively. Ford was down about 5%. Some 700,000 cars were sold in the summer under the program as buyers received up to $4,500 to buy a new car they would probably have purchased anyway, so all the program seems to have done is steal those sales from the future. Exactly as critics predicted.

Cash for clunkers had two objectives: help the environment by increasing fuel efficiency, and boost car sales to help Detroit and the economy. It achieved neither. According to Hudson Institute economist Irwin Stelzer, at best “the reduction in gasoline consumption will cut our oil consumption by 0.2 percent per year, or less than a single day’s gasoline use.” Burton Abrams and George Parsons of the University of Delaware added up the total benefits from reduced gas consumption, environmental improvements and the benefit to car buyers and companies, minus the overall cost of cash for clunkers, and found a net cost of roughly $2,000 per vehicle. Rather than stimulating the economy, the program made the nation as a whole $1.4 billion poorer.

The basic fallacy of cash for clunkers is that you can somehow create wealth by destroying existing assets that are still productive, in this case cars that still work. Under the program, auto dealers were required to destroy the car engines of trade-ins with a sodium silicate solution, then smash them and send them to the junk yard. As the journalist Henry Hazlitt wrote in his classic, “Economics in One Lesson,” you can’t raise living standards by breaking windows so some people can get jobs repairing them.

In the category of all-time dumb ideas, cash for clunkers rivals the New Deal brainstorm to slaughter pigs to raise pork prices. The people who really belong in the junk yard are the wizards in Washington who peddled this economic malarkey.

And I plan to broadcast it live from my android phone, 3G permitting.

The broadcast will be right here at jessebickel.com, tentatively thanks to the neat little app from bambuser.com.

Don’t expect a better than 174-pixel-wide display, and crappy audio, and a fuzzy view from far away. But I figured I’d experiment with this for what could be a 2012 run announcement.

The Reuters report:

WASHINGTON–(Business Wire)–
On Monday November 9th, Congressman Ron Paul is scheduled to deliver a lecture
at the University of South Carolina. The lecture, entitled “The Politics of
Tolerance,” is intended to highlight the importance of civility and tolerance in
politics and everyday life.

Update: Campaign for Liberty is planning to do a live feed as well, so make sure to check www.campaignforliberty.org for a quality broadcast. You might be able to find another stream on justin.tv.

My testimony included tangible coins. I introduced the gold eagle coin, the silver eagle coin, silver quarters, and silver dimes to the subcommittee (covering all the accounts in the bill), then I proceeded with the following testimony:

There are no fancy letters after my name so allow me to introduce myself. I am a software developer. I have lived and worked in Atlanta for nearly four years. While my coworkers were taking out five year loans to get brand new Nissans, I bought a 1994 Saturn with 1600 dollars cash. While my friends were taking out 30 year Adjustable Rate Mortgages with payments they could barely afford, I rented a room in a house with other people. While others were living off their credit cards, I was paying off any credit card debt I had and I was building an emergency fund. In other words, I was always a little uncomfortable with the debt-based, faith-based economy. Now we have all seen some consequences of too much spending and borrowing, and not enough saving. When I was laid off from my job several weeks ago, my decisions to save and live frugally paid off. My point is to offer myself some credibility before making a statement in support of the Constitutional Tender Act.

I encourage the committee to support the Constitutional Tender Act for two reasons. The first is respect for the Constitution of the United States. The second is concern for the future of Georgia and her banking institutions.

The Constitution of the United States recognizes sovereignty of the states in article ten of the Bill of Rights. However, the states are forbidden to make “any Thing but gold or silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts” in Article I section 10. The central government is given no power to make a tender at all. Furthermore, on August 16, 1787 a motion to strike out the power of Congress to “emit bills on the credit of the U. States” carried nine to two. All the discussion regarded “bills of credit” to be “paper money.” Article I section 8 of the Constitution allows Congress the power to “Coin money” which obviously concerns coins and not paper. Indeed, why would the founders grant the Congress the power to create money that the States would be forbidden from making a tender? Despite Washington DC’s ignorance and hostility to the Constitution of the United States, we in Georgia have an obligation to do our best to follow it. The Constitutional Tender Act is a good start at compliance with the Constitution.

I am worried that the banks of Georgia may protest the Constitutional Tender Act on the grounds that it creates compliance costs. My hope is that they will see the wisdom in the act, as it will allow banks in Georgia to continue operating under dire circumstances. In the short term, compliance will require some work. In the long term, I urge the banking sector to consider the case of wholesale dollar rejection. If foreign creditors, the Federal Reserve, and the Congress allow the US dollar to collapse, people will probably not deposit their paper money into banks. This act does nothing to stop the current business of dealing with paper money, but it offers a future benefit for banks who comply with it. Banks already offering an alternative to dollar-only accounts will be ahead of the curve in what is shaping up to be a currency crisis. It should be noted that the act offers no prohibition on fees to open or hold an account denominated in Constitutional money. Obviously the banks must maintain profitability, so I would not expect them to offer safekeeping of money for free.
In conclusion, it is in the interest of the people of Georgia and the banks in Georgia to support the Constitutional Tender Act.

State Representative Bobby Franklin’s quick summary:

Representative Bobby Franklin’s introduction and Q&A:

Dr. Bill Greene’s testimony:

Aaron Krowne’s testimony:

My testimony:

Sean Mangieri’s testimony:

Franklin Sanders’ testimony:

At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.

I didn’t think about it at the time, but notice how he doesn’t even mention the names of any documents. Sure as you’re born, America has not remained faithful to the ideals of our forbears nor true to the “founding documents.” I wonder when the last time Barack Obama read any “founding documents.” Perhaps if asked “which founding documents?” he will answer like Sarah Palin: “all of them.” And which ideals?

America has not followed the Constitution, it has steadily eroded it. If you disagree with my assessment, please re-read the Constitution and let me know which parts we have followed. Then again, Obama may not consider the Constitution a “founding document” so he may not have lied.

Obama continues:

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

So according to Obama, it is the worn out dogmas that are our problem. We should stop following worn out dogmas. But didn’t he just say we were “faithful to the ideals of our forbears”?

Obama continues:

Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

This is more what I expected from the speech. Remaking America. No surprises here. But then why the line about carrying on because we remained faithful to the ideals?

Continuing,

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

First of all, I question the scale because Obama has yet to lay it out for us clearly. The very next sentence is another contradiction.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.

Obama calls us to recollect what this country has already done to suggest we can do it again, but then says the ground has shifted so that the “stale” political arguments of the past “no longer apply.” How about I say this instead: recall the political arguments of the past and where they led us, and the ground has shifted so the big plans of the past no longer apply.

On a more positive note,

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations.

This is the one part I hope will be true in his presidency, but I am confident will not be true. I’ll remember this line and bring it up when Obama fails to curb the tyrannical DHS, or when he increases its power.

Obama continues,

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions.

Here the president attempts to distance himself from fascism and communism, implying that these ideals have been defeated. I personally have a hard time distinguishing our current system from either fascism or communism.

Now Obama shifts back to liking the old ideas,

Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends - hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism - these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths.

He says the “values” are “old” and “true.” I thought the ground had shifted and that we needed to remake America.

The first time I heard it, I agreed with the following, but seeing it again I think differently:

What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task. This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

We need responsibility, yes. Citizenship has a price, yes. This paragraph was carefully worded, however. It gave me the impression of individual responsibility, but now I see that it is “required of us now” in a fully collective sense. Rather than “each” American (individual) it is “every” American (collective). Rather than having a “duty to yourself” (individual) there are “duties to ourselves” (collective). If I were to order my responsibility, it would be close to his order: self, nation, world. However, he never said you have a responsibility to yourself.

Let it be said by our children’s children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God’s grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

Maybe I’m nitpicking, but you ought not give an inaugural address and expect no one to notice what you said. Obama suggests a “remaking.” Obama decried the old “dogmas” but praised the old “values.” He started with a lie, continued with contradictions, and ended with an ambiguous charge to carry freedom and delivery it. I’m not sure what kind of freedom ignores the Constitution, claims the size of government doesn’t matter, and requires heavy market regulation.

I don’t know any more now what to expect than I knew before November 4th.

On a more positive note, a couple of weeks ago over one hundred people showed up at the Atlanta Federal Reserve to protest its existence. Here’s the video I took.

The controversy began on Tuesday after Mr Obama said his rival was advocating change while pursuing the politics of the current Bush administration.

Mr McCain’s campaign accused him of smearing running mate Sarah Palin.

Mrs Palin joked last week that lipstick was all that separated a “hockey mom” and a pitbull.

‘Made-up’ controversy

Mr Obama made the remark during a rally in Virginia where he accused the McCain campaign of trying suddenly to adopt the promise of change - a platform he himself has been running on for months.

Drawing a link between the Republican senator for Arizona and President George W Bush, he suggested change would be impossible for Mr McCain to achieve.

“You can put lipstick on a pig. It’s still a pig. You can wrap up an old fish in a piece of paper and call it change. It’s still going to stink after eight years. We’ve had enough.”

A click or two removed from the RSS feed of the BBC, you can find Ron Paul urging a vote for other parties. Let’s go with CNN’s version for insight:

“I’ve come to the conclusion, after having spent many years in politics, is that our presidential elections turn out to be more of a charade than anything else, and I think that is true today. It is a charade,” he said.

Paul offered an open endorsement to the four candidates because each signed onto a policy statement that calls for “balancing budgets, bring troops home, personal liberties and investigating the Federal Reserve,” an aide to the congressman said.

Paul is telling America to vote for Baldwin, Barr, McKinney, or Nader. I know a lot of you think those candidates are crazy, but please take a look at the first article I linked to. Both Obama and McCain accuse the other of not offering change, and avoiding real issues, all the while avoiding real issues and not offering real change. As my dear mother would point out, it’s an opportunity to ask “who is really crazy?”

Please, voters, wake up and realize our foreign policy will not change with either of the establishment candidates. Our monetary policy will not even be spoken about by either of the establishment candidates. Our fiscal irresponsibility will not be addressed by either of the establishment candidates. The national debt will grow with either Obama or McCain. Troops will be sent all over the world with either McCain or Obama. Our civil liberties will disappear with either candidate. Ron Paul is right - this is the time to vote for a candidate that discusses the real issues and offers real change.

He’s not the first to say this, and it’s not unreasonable. Did you know that the US has been arming and supporting the Georgian leadership? Did you notice how McCain’s polling improved immediately? It’s not guaranteed to be the truth, but it makes sense. Here are the stories I watched last week and found to be a better commentary than CNN, BBC, etc.

Please take the time to watch half of the following series from the so-called “Real News.” If you want to watch only the half relevant to Putin’s comments, start with part 3 and watch part 4 too. I’ve listed links below for parts 1 and 2.

Part 3 (this is the segment where they discuss the possibilities Putin is talking about):

Part 4:

If you want to watch the whole piece, here are the other parts.
Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIe53ajZKhs
Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIdDc_YLeQs

A 56-year-old man from the Midwestern US state of Wisconsin has been arrested after shooting his lawn mower in his garden because it would not start.

The BBC headline was “US man charged for shooting mower.” The article is presented as a silly story with a happy ending. Some drunkard is wielding an illegal assault weapon and now he’s probably going to jail. “Thank God” readers agree, “just look at the picture of this wacko!”

If you try to figure out what happened, a great deal of information is missing in the AP release.

Police found the shotgun, a handgun and a stungun, as well as ammunition, when they detained Mr Walendowski in the basement of his house.

First of all, how did the police even find out about this incident? Who called the cops and where is that person’s story? Secondly, how did they get into the man’s house? Did they obtain a warrant or just follow him in? Finally, what does “detained” in this situation mean?

At a glance, the story is laughable and silly: some drunk shot his lawnmower and now he’s in trouble. But under the surface the story is a clear testament to the level of government intervention in private lives. The man owns a shotgun. Last I checked, there is a clear provision for gun ownership in our constitution. The man was drinking. Last I checked, there is a clear provision for alcohol use in our constitution. The man was on his own property, with his own shotgun, shooting his own lawnmower. And he was detained in his own basement. Last I checked, there is a clear provision against police action of this kind in our constitution.

Any US Citizen reading the story should be appalled at the level of control the state asserts in our lives.