What We Think and Why

Yes, It's Another Commentary About Rand Paul

noreply@blogger.com (Grant Davies) — Wed, 22 May 2013 00:55:00 +0000

I'd be delighted to showcase a video featuring another leader talking common sense to the American people. The problem is, I don't see anyone else doing that.

In this video, he takes his turn on the Government Affairs Subcommittee today and turns out to be the only one to call the whole dog and pony show for what it is.

This is a leader saying what needs to be said, and as usual, he stands alone. I'd be happy to showcase someone else if any reader wants to send me a link to a video of someone else taking the lead in the fight to bring sanity back to our government.

In the mean time, Apple did nothing wrong. And thank goodness someone stood up for them.

Is America Ready to Dump the Old Left/Right Paradigm? Maybe

noreply@blogger.com (Grant Davies) — Wed, 15 May 2013 15:32:00 +0000

By Grant Davies

If you have even the slightest notion that you have been manipulated by the political system and its operatives at any time in your life, you have.

Do you ever find yourself reflexively opposing some idea or proposal because it is a Republican initiative? Or because it is a Democratic initiative?

Have you ever talked to anyone who was a Republican because they opposed Democrats? Or a Democrat because they opposed Republicans? Or who voted one way or the other because they were Irish, or Jewish, or black, or white, or their parents always voted that way? Or who liked or hated Obama or Bush because it was the default position of the crowd they hang around with?

Have you ever noticed that you are sick of talking heads on Fox News or MSNBC telling you what to think? Or that the talk radio shows you listen to are only an echo chamber for what you already knew?

Maybe it's time to seek out someone you know who is on the opposite side of the political spectrum from you and chat about what you agree upon. Maybe you will find someone who is as sick as you are of the old left/right paradigm.

Maybe it's time to look for something different. Maybe it's time for someone to step forward and cut through the BS. Maybe it's time for someone who sees what we agree upon and builds upon it instead of pitting us against each other.

Maybe it's time to consider Rand Paul's ideas. Maybe they were your own ideas all along. Maybe your friends are thinking the same thing. Maybe...

Is Political Correctness a Weapon in the War on Freedom?

noreply@blogger.com (Grant Davies) — Fri, 10 May 2013 14:24:00 +0000

By Grant Davies

You may have heard this story recently. It's been floating around the net, but of course it hasn't been covered by the mainstream media. At least I haven't seen it. To be fair, I don't watch very much of the mostly useless drivel they peddle as "news"on those networks, so feel free to correct me if you saw it on one of them.

Since the theme of this blog is freedom and individual rights, it only seems right to bring this to your attention. When someone's rights are violated they lose some of their freedom. It doesn't matter which thugs are doing the violating.

It could be common street thugs who steal the liberty of inner city teenagers by attempting to force them into joining a gang. Losing the right to walk the streets freely unless you comply is no small loss.

It could be union thugs who use their partnership with government thugs to force people into joining their gang. Losing the right to work for whom you choose at a mutually agreed upon wage is no small loss.

Or it could be the thugs in government (at all levels) who steal individual liberty in ways too numerous to count. All the small losses add up to a mostly un-free existence.

In the case below it is university administrators who use political correctness to squash individual liberty. Those in charge at Syracuse University tried their best to destroy the career path and aspirations of the young man below by labeling him as a racist (and other vile things). He dared to make a personal post on his Facebook page questioning the opinion of someone who held that he was somehow unqualified to teach non-white students because he wasn't from a traditionally black college.

His right to work as a teacher may be over because of it. He seems to have "won" round one (or two, depending upon what you count) by exposing the thugs. But it remains to be seen if he will be blacklisted for not being black.

If he is, it will be no small loss for any of us.

Comments are welcome.

Welfare for Terrorists

noreply@blogger.com (Grant Davies) — Thu, 02 May 2013 19:11:00 +0000

By Grant Davies

About a week ago I threatened to write about two different things that were pissing me off. I said I would do so in a day or so. But it's not my fault that I didn't deliver, it's yours. That's right, it's yours.

As my old friend "JO" used to say, "You screwed up, you trusted me." (Okay, he didn't say screwed, he used a different word, but then again he's not like me, a famous writer who has a reputation to protect.)

Truth be told, I was too busy to be both pissed off and also write about it. So here I am, a week later, and guess what? I'm still pissed off about those things, so here goes.

The first item was a slam dunk for any thinking person to be indignant about. It was the news that one of the Boston bombers was collecting welfare transfer payments from the government while he was plotting to kill and maim innocent people at a public event. That's bad enough because this imbecile and his nitwit brother were killers, but odd as it seems, that wasn't the worst part.

Heck, a huge number of the criminals in this country are getting some form of government transfer payment. I'd say (without actually knowing) that the vast majority of gang-bangers in any larger city are getting some "free" money while they go about their business of killing, robbing, dope dealing, and impregnating multiple women. And that's just one criminal class. So, it's nothing novel, that's for certain.

The problem is that he was getting any government money at all. Not because he was a murderous scum bag, but because he isn't a citizen of this country. He's here as a guest. He came here voluntarily. We allowed him to talk us into letting him into this country. And it's a fair bet that if it turns out that there are more people involved in the Boston Marathon murders they will be getting some form of government handout as well.

We don't owe the rest of the people in the world a check just because they breathe. If we did, we could save ourselves a lot of trouble by just sending them a check where ever they live. They could stay home and save the transportation costs and it would have the added benefit for us that it's hard to throw a pressure cooker bomb across the ocean.

Most people just know instinctively that when you allow someone to come into the country as a guest, they are expected to provide themselves with their own food and pay for their own lodging and clothing. Or perhaps they have a sponsor to provide it for them. If they run out of any of those things, or their sponsor no longer is able or willing to provide them, it's time to go home. Simple, right? Apparently nothing is simple in an upside down Utopia like the current USA.

Therefore I propose a new law. It's something I seldom, if ever, do. The law would be simple. "No person residing in, or visiting the US, shall be the beneficiary of any government program or payment of any kind unless they are a citizen."

So there is my rant about the first issue. I'll write about the second one soon. But if I don't, just remember, it's your fault for trusting me.

Okay, I'm Pissed Off Again

noreply@blogger.com (Grant Davies) — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 15:01:00 +0000

By Grant Davies

The other day a reader asked me if I was still writing for this blog. It was a fair question since I hadn't posted (much less personally written) anything here for twenty-two days. In fact, there has only been one post here in the month of April and only four in March. In the "blogosphere" that's forever. Over the last few years I've learned a few things about blogging. One of them is that you start to lose readers when you don't post regularly.

But I have some good news on that score. Since the regular readership of this blog falls a tad short of the hits that The Drudge Report gets, there aren't that many to lose. And truth be told, almost all of the regular readers here know that I have continued to write (albeit somewhat less often) for my other blog, Cheeky History. So everyone knew I didn't croak and start writing opinion pieces in heaven about how God ought to run things differently up there.

Anyway, I apologize to those few (if any) who have missed the posts here. I'm also sure there are some people whose hope that I had stopped pontificating online are now dashed, but oh well.

Candidly, most of the time I write on this site when something that's happening pisses me off. And while there are still plenty of things happening that piss me off, I just got tired of being pissed. It's bad for your health and your attitude. All things considered, I'm happier when I'm not pissed, and I want to be happy as much as possible in this unhappy world. But in the last day or so, my "pissed off meter" went into the red zone again when I read about two items.

The first was when I discovered that the evil imbecile who decided to enlist his equally evil kid brother in a scheme to kill people at the Boston Marathon was on welfare.

The second was this morning when I read that the somewhat less evil imbeciles in the US Congress are secretly working behind the scenes to come up with a "Bi-partisan" agreement on how to exempt themselves and their employees from the Obamacare nightmare that is descending on the rest of us.

There is much to be said about both items but this post is starting to to violate my "KISS" (keep it short, stupid) rule, so I promise to work on these two "pissers" tonight. If I can put two readable essays together soon I'll publish them tomorrow or the next day so you can give them all the attention they don't deserve.

Let's Party Like It's 2006

noreply@blogger.com (Grant Davies) — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 14:54:00 +0000

Editors note: The following post is republished here with the express permission of the author, Dan Mitchell, who blogs at the excellent site "International Liberty" and who is featured here on a regular basis. People who do not follow his blog on a regular basis are missing out.

Apparently Learning Nothing from the Fannie Mae-Freddie Mac Disaster, the Obama Administration Wants to Subsidize Banks to Make More Dodgy Loans

“Let’s party like it’s 2006!”

by Dan Mitchell

Let’s assume you didn’t understand how a garbage disposal worked and, for whatever reason, you decided to stick your arm in one and turn it on. You would do some serious injury to your hand.

The rest of us would wonder what motivated you to stick your arm down the drain in the first place, but we would feel sympathy because you didn’t realize bad things would happen. But if you then told us that you were planning to do the same thing tomorrow, we would think you were crazy. Didn’t you learn anything, we would ask?

Seems like a preposterous scenario, but something very similar is now happening in Washington. The Obama Administration is proposing to once again put the economy at risk by subsidizing banks to give mortgages to people with poor credit.

Even though we’re still dealing with the economic and fiscal damage caused by the last episode of government housing subsidies!

Here are some of the unbelievable details from a report in the Washington Post.

The Obama administration is engaged in a broad push to make more home loans available to people with weaker credit…officials say they are working to get banks to lend to a wider range of borrowers by taking advantage of taxpayer-backed programs — including those offered by the Federal Housing Administration — that insure home loans against default. Housing officials are urging the Justice Department to provide assurances to banks, which have become increasingly cautious, that they will not face legal or financial recriminations if they make loans to riskier borrowers who meet government standards but later default.

Brings to mind the famous saying from George Santayana that, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

But what’s especially amazing – and distressing – about this latest scheme is that “the past” was only a couple of years ago. Or, to recall my odd analogy, one of our hands is still mangled and bleeding and we’re thinking about putting our other hand in the disposal.

Some people understand this is a nutty idea.

…critics say encouraging banks to lend as broadly as the administration hopes will sow the seeds of another housing disaster and endanger taxpayer dollars. “If that were to come to pass, that would open the floodgates to highly excessive risk and would send us right back on the same path we were just trying to recover from,” said Ed Pinto, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

What’s also discouraging is that the government already is deeply involved in the housing market – even though this is an area where there is no legitimate role for the federal intervention.

Deciding which borrowers get loans might seem like something that should be left up to the private market. But since the financial crisis in 2008, the government has shaped most of the housing market, insuring between 80 percent and 90 percent of all new loans, according to the industry publication Inside Mortgage Finance. It has done so primarily through the Federal Housing Administration, which is part of the executive branch, and taxpayer-backed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, run by an independent regulator.

So I guess the goal is to have taxpayers on the hook for 100 percent of loans. “Don’t worry, it’s not our money”
Anybody want to guess whether this will end well?

By the way, this is bad policy even if we somehow avoid a new bubble and big taxpayer losses. Even in a”best case” scenario, the federal government will be distorting the allocation of capital by discouraging business investment and subsidizing residential real estate.

And as shown in this powerful chart, that will have adverse consequences for wages and living standards.
The part of the article that most nauseated me was a quote from the head bureaucrat at the Federal Housing Administration.

“My view is that there are lots of creditworthy borrowers that are below 720 or 700 — all the way down the credit-score spectrum,” Galante said. “It’s important you look at the totality of that borrower’s ability to pay.”

Gee, isn’t that nice that Ms. Galante thinks there are lots of borrowers with good “totality” measures? But here’s an interesting concept. Why doesn’t she put her money at risk instead of making me the involuntary guarantor on these dodgy loans?

I’ve already said on TV that we should dump Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the Potomac River. And I’ve argued that the entire Department of Housing and Urban Development should be razed to the ground. But perhaps this cartoon best shows the consequences of the Obama Administration’s new subsidy scheme.

P.S. We also should get rid of housing preference in the tax code. Our economy should cater to the underlying preferences of consumers, not the electoral interests of politicians.

Rand Paul Interview

noreply@blogger.com (Grant Davies) — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 01:02:00 +0000

Many of you have may have missed the Fox News Sunday interview with Sen. Rand Paul. (As I did.) Watching it may answer some questions that are being asked about this (now) national figure.

I'm happy to say that this blog has been informing it's readers about Rand Paul since long before most of the country had even heard of him.

In fact, I have had some friends more or less telling me that I should familiarize myself with him. They seem to have forgotten that when I introduced his name to them they had never heard of him themselves. Please don't take that as a complaint or an "I told you so." (Okay, maybe a slight "I told you so.")

It's a good thing, and I sincerely hope that all of you distribute these videos widely to your friends and colleagues, particularly your friends who are Democrats or Independents.

It is my observation that if you are saying or doing something that draws fire from both establishment Republicans and Democrats, like Rand Paul is, you are doing something right.

Concealed Carry Marine Saves a Life in Wisconsin

noreply@blogger.com (Grant Davies) — Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:09:00 +0000

Gun grabbers are fond of saying that "guns in the possession of private citizens never make a bad situation better."

Putting aside the obvious conclusion that the statement is inane, let's look at one case that refutes it and makes an even bigger point about how many people in our armed forces often continue to serve America even after their active duty has concluded.

The following video tells the story of what happened in Milwaukee two days ago when an ex-marine with a concealed carry permit stopped a man from stomping a girl to death on the street. Although all the details were not yet known when this news report aired, it seems likely that the perpetrator was an ex-boyfriend who had been stalking his victim on her way to work.

If the ex-marine, Charlie Blackmore, had called 911 before he made a citizens arrest on this murderous thug, rather than after he stopped him from kicking the victim to death, there would be one less innocent person alive today. Fast thinking combined with confident action saved the girl and even spared the perpetrator. This event is just one more reason to thank a vet for their service.

From now on, maybe when you hear a "progressive" thinker utter the phrase, "If we save just one life, it will be worth it", you will think about this case.

The term Semper Fi, describes Charlie Blackmore better than anything I could think up to say about him.

Courage and Cowardice

noreply@blogger.com (Grant Davies) — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 17:54:00 +0000

I didn't vote for John McCain. I have never regretted that decision.

Today, I feel even more satisfied that my opposition to Barack Obama and his "progressive" agenda did not blind me to recognizing McCain for what he was and is.

Rand Paul took to the Senate floor to filibuster against the nomination of a thug named John Brennan as the new director of the CIA. He did so because Brennan refused to rule out assassinating US citizens on US soil, without an accusation, an arrest, an arraignment, access to a lawyer, a trial, or a conviction on any charge.

Rand Paul stood up for the US Constitution, not against Obama. He did it the right way, by actually speaking, on topic, for over 12 hours in defense of our 5th amendment rights. He defended the right of Habeas Corpus and the rule of law.

A small number of Senators supported him, mostly Republicans (of the libertarian variety) and one Democrat. But senators John McCain, and Lindsey Graham excoriated him. McCain even resorted to name calling, saying he and his supporters, were "Wackos."

You can decide for yourself who has courage and who is a wacko. My opinion is obvious.

One more question. It's the same one ultra liberal John Cusack and liberal TV pundit Jon Stewart are asking as they support Rand Paul on the issue: "Where are the Democats on Drones?"

All you Democrats should be asking the same question. It seems you might be blinded by your love of Obama if you can't hold your leaders accountable when they do the things that make you howl bloody murder when Republicans do them.

If water-boarding is terrible when performed on actual terrorists, what is assassinating US citizens from a drone? Is is courage or cowardice?

Contemplating Our Conclusions

noreply@blogger.com (Grant Davies) — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 11:00:00 +0000

This short post first appeared on the excellent blog, "Our Dinner Table" on February 27, 2013. It was written by Seth, a regular contributor to this site.

Short on words, long on potential for provoking thought about the conclusions we regularly accept because of the regularity of their repetition.

Signals Rather Than Causes

Being a homeowner makes one responsible.
More likely:
Responsible people become homeowners.

Going to preschool improves ones chances of success.
More likely:
Having parents that do a lot of things, including sending kids to preschool, improves ones chances of success.

A college degree increases your earnings.
More likely:
Ambitious folks find ways to make more money. I’ve heard of studies that look at non-college graduates that have similar ambition and work ethic as college graduates that show that they have about the same earnings as college graduates.

Countries with government health care have better health, as measured by life expectancy and infant mortality, than the U.S.
More likely:
Other factors like health habits, diet choices, demographics, lifestyle choices and differences in the way these health stats are tracked from country to country have bigger impact than whether the health care system is provided by government or not.

Can you think of any?

1984 Was Child's Play

noreply@blogger.com (Grant Davies) — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:40:00 +0000

By Grant Davies

Coming to your neighborhood in the not too distant future? Your Glock won't protect you from these kinds of threats. And the technology you see here is already obsolete. When you contemplate this, think twenty years down the road, or less. And think much smaller, quieter, and lethal as well.

The drones you see on TV right now will be thought of one day as laughable. Maybe this is why Obama and his new CIA nominee John Brennan won't rule out using drones against US citizens on US soil. Maybe it's why police departments all over the country are scrambling to get drones.

You might want to take note of new laws which I think will be proposed soon to outlaw the private ownership of these devices. Am I a conspiracy theorist?

Maybe I'm just not willing to rule this out as a possibility.

The video above is not a typical YouTube vid, so I hope it plays on your device. If not you can try reloading the page or you can follow the link to watch it on the original page at the Mail Online, a UK newspaper.

A Better State of the Union Address

noreply@blogger.com (Grant Davies) — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 14:30:00 +0000

Not long ago I made arrangements with a talented and totally rational blogger named Seth to have some of his posts appear here. His blog is titled, Our Dinner Table, and you really should visit it.

I won't waste a lot of virtual ink telling you what it is and why should should read it, I'll just hope you follow the link and see for yourself if you value reading it more than the time it takes to do so. All I will say is that it's thoughtful commentary on various subjects with no cyber screaming.

So meet Seth, our new contributor, as he delivers the version of the State of the Union Address he would give if he were President.

Good Evening.

It’s good to see you all here.

We kept you relatively safe for another year. Regrettably, bad things happened. We’re not perfect. I wish we were.

But, let’s give a warm round of applause to the brave members of our military forces who kept the vast majority of us safe.

Now, go forth and enjoy your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

If I’m not doing something that you think I should, please consult with the Constitution and point me to where I’m empowered to do that.

See you next year.

Good Evening.

State of the Union?

noreply@blogger.com (Grant Davies) — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 16:24:00 +0000

Various scholars from the Cato Institute give a fair non-partisan assessment of last night's State of the Union address. It's clear that they disagree with him on many, if not most, points. But it's not an anti-Obama rebuttal. Rather, it's a clarification of what the state of the union actually is, minus the political talking points.

Judge for yourself whether I'm correct about that and leave a comment as you feel led.

Dr. Carson Educates Barack Obama About Healthcare

noreply@blogger.com (Grant Davies) — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 23:42:00 +0000

By Grant Davies

In my opinion, this speech by Dr. Benjamin Carson is one of the best speeches you will hear for a very long time. And it will surely be one of the least "PC" speeches you have heard.

There is no political posturing or denigration of others who disagree with him. It's not all about healthcare. It is about other commonsense issues as well. It's 27 minutes long so I'm frightened that many people won't even begin to watch it. I often back off from such long videos myself, so I'm not casting aspersions on anyone.

If you aren't up to it right now you can start at the 18 min. mark or the 21 min. mark and get to a lot of the policy points. Unfortunately you miss a lot of very good things if you do that. If you do watch it in its entirety it will probably be the best 27 minutes you spend today.

The President is sitting within a few feet of Dr. Carson as he speaks. This man has courage. It is clear that he is respectful but not intimidated by anyone around him.

It appears on this site, not because it is anti-Obama, but because it is pro-commonsense and is littered with ideas that are pro-liberty. And this site is not an anti-Obama site; it is all about promoting individual liberty and personal responsibility.

Hardcore libertarians may find points to differ with Dr. Carson, but I won't apologize for that.

How to Create a Shortage - 101

noreply@blogger.com (Grant Davies) — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 13:53:00 +0000

By Grant Davies

If you want to create a shortage in a hurry, just pass a law to "freeze" the price of the target commodity. In this case, the commodity is food and the place is Argentina. The news came out yesterday in this story.

The economically ignorant people in Argentina are about to get a lesson in "How to create shortages 101." I suggest they get in line at the grocery store now while they can because it will be a while before the alternate retailers of food and other grocery items - also known as the black market - are set up to deliver the needed commodities to the Argentinian populace.

In case anyone needs a refresher course in "unintended (and bad) consequences", I refer them to the long lines at the gas stations that people my age had to endure just a few decades back, 1979 to be exact.

The price of gas was frozen by the economic literates back then and the lines became blocks, sometimes miles, long. Soon there was rationing schemes of every type being tried, and corruption and favoritism became rampant. The same thing happened with the supply of impossible to find "rent controlled" apartments in NY and other goofy places that tried the same nonsense with the housing commodity.

Here's what it looks like in Venezuela

Sellers and buyers will soon find "workarounds" to the wonderfully low food prices in Argentina, but it will be messy as it all unfolds. And the people at the front of the line will be able to profit on whatever they can obtain - but don't need themselves - by selling it at a higher price to those who didn't get in line. So the commodity will find its price anyway.

Can't find what you need? Just buy something else while it's still available so you can trade it for what you do need. Just don't expect the quality or selection to be too high because the sellers will only be offering products that don't have sufficient demand to warrant higher prices, if they can find any, that is.

It's possible, perhaps likely, that hunger will find its victims if the nitwits running the show don't back down quickly.

In the end, since inflation (in the words of Milton Friedman) " is everywhere and always a monetary phenomenon" it cannot be stopped by trying to control the price mechanism. The law of supply and demand will always win out. It's a law the politicians never made so it cannot be repealed.

So what about us here in the good old US? Higher prices are coming to this country soon. They have already begun to show themselves in many commodities despite slack demand. So, the only question is; will the politicians here make the same stupid mistakes they have made before and copycat the Argentinian illiterates? Take a guess.

Arming Our Enemies

noreply@blogger.com (Grant Davies) — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 15:14:00 +0000

By Grant Davies

You don't like us? Your country is coming apart at the seams? Your leader says Jews are the descendants of pigs and monkeys? Your leader claims the holocaust never happened?

Well, we have a way of dealing with you! We hope this isn't too harsh, but we are forced to do it. Get ready, here comes your punishment...

Here's 20 F-16s! And tons of Abrams tanks! That should make it clear that we mean business and don't approve of what you are doing and saying. Think of all the work you are going to have to do now to figure out who to attack. That'll show you! Next time you'll know what to do and what not to do.

Tina Has the Last Laff - A New Feature

noreply@blogger.com (Grant Davies) — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 14:06:00 +0000

Tina Turner waving bye bye

By Grant Davies

Last week I penned a short piece titled "Mickelson Shrugged." It explained that champion golfer (and pretty rich guy) Phil Mickleson was contemplating leaving his home state of California to escape being preyed upon by greedy residents and politicians, who voted for him to pay much higher state income taxes so that they didn't have to. That way (they reasoned) they could continue to pursue their profligate ways without paying for it themselves.

I pointed out that Phil made a pretty good illustration for the "Laffer Curve." If you haven't read it, by all means go back and do so. It has received some pretty good reviews from those who have. (As opposed to the "have nots", but I digress.)

Since then I have discovered that it wasn't only Phil who shrugged. We can now add Eldrick "Tiger" Woods to the list which is starting to grow daily. He has admitted that he moved to Florida sixteen years ago to avoid having his money confiscated by the "Golden State" and pissed down a rat hole. It's hard to imagine how much money he has saved by doing so, or how much he has added to the economy of his newly adopted state since then. I was never much of a Tiger fan until I discovered he understood basic economics, at least his own. I might even root for him this weekend unless he gets too obnoxious again.

Then yesterday I heard that Tina Turner, the aging music icon, has decided to denounce her US citizenship and become a citizen of Switzerland. It seems that since she lives there anyway, she figures she might as well keep her dough, too. It helps that her wealth is denominated in Swiss Francs. The Swiss don't print them as quickly as our FED prints dollars, so they retain their value better on a relative basis. Smart lady. It appears that she is actually a "Dancer for Money" after all, just not so privately nowadays.

So I had the idea that maybe I should be keeping track of all these "Lafferites." (A term I just coined. Unless of course someone somewhere already did, in which case, I apologize.) But I need you to help me keep track. There will be a lot more of these types from now on as Obama makes more progress in his class war against those who have made a bunch of dough. And some of them are just rich, but not famous, so I'll need help finding stories about them and putting them on the list.

Therefore, anyone who regularly reads this blog is hereby deputized to round up the names of any who dare to publicly proclaim why they are fleeing or otherwise "Laffing" at those too dim-witted to figure out what to do.

Just leave a comment here or email me and I'll be adding the names and any documentation to a new feature. It's titled Lafferites. Please be sure to visit that page on this blog often to check our progress. There is additional information and more clever commentary there.

Mickelson Shrugged

noreply@blogger.com (Grant Davies) — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 21:30:00 +0000

By Grant Davies

Yesterday I made a comment on Facebook and Twitter that "Mickelson Shrugged." I was referring to Phil's thinking aloud about how he would respond to the new tax rates in his home state of California that are aimed at guys like him and his family.

Some are now reporting that he is sorry he spilled the beans on his ruminations. Notwithstanding that possible regret on going public before he decided what, if anything, to do, he is now the focus point for discussions on the "Laffer Curve."

Despite what some people say, the "Laffer Curve" merely explains that humans respond to different tax rates in ways that aren't always the same as those imposing the taxes have anticipated. It's a simple concept that nevertheless doesn't fit the world view of those who try to advance the idea that small groups of elite people who have political power should be in charge of the wealth created by others. That group has had much success in convincing economic illiterates that the "Curve" is something else.

In the interest of clarity, here is a look at what might happen to states like California now that they have convinced many people to vote for the immoral proposition that tax rates for some high earners should be higher to allow people like themselves to pay at a lower rate. Of course the explanation comes to us from Dan Mitchell at International Liberty where many economic lessons are explained in a way that almost anyone can understand.

Many of you may already visit that site on a regular basis so you might wonder why I keep touting it and Dan's great work. The reason is that this site is visited daily by many people who are not regular readers and who land on this site for all kinds of reasons. They hail from all over the globe. It is my hope that those of them who have a taste for freedom will also be exposed to the explanations of why, despite any shortcomings it may have, freedom is the best path to a better society.

To sum it up, I'll paraphrase the caption of a recent cartoon about new businesses in the Golden State.

If someone wants to escape the discrimination inherent with the new taxes on high incomes in California there are several routes they can take. But all of them lead out of California.

Free Trade is Part of Freedom

noreply@blogger.com (Grant Davies) — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 16:02:00 +0000

By Grant Davies

I maintain that I have the right, as a human being, to make economic (or other) arrangements with any other human being on this planet without violent or coercive interference of third parties, whether individuals, or groups of individuals. Those groups would typically be governments, trade unions, or other trade associations.

The only legitimate restriction on that right is that I do not engage in behavior that infringes on the equal right of other human beings to do likewise. Any interference with that right is illegitimate, whether "legal" or otherwise.

"Free Trade" is a basic human right.

How To Catch Wild Pigs

noreply@blogger.com (Grant Davies) — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:19:00 +0000

By Grant Davies

Most of us get a ton of forwarded emails each week. I get my share. If you do as well you know they have something in common with the jokes that also get to your inbox. That is, you have seen most of them before. Similarly, I'm sure many of you have seen the one below in the past.

I received it yesterday from a reader, and even though I had not seen this one before, it reminded me of the well traveled recipe for "How to cook a frog." Anyone who somehow missed that recipe over the years can leave a comment below and I'll retell it for you.

Let's title this one, "How To Catch Wild Pigs." We can assume it is a parable rather than a literal retelling. We can also assume it has been added to, redacted, and otherwise edited by numerous readers along the way before they passed it along to their list. I was tempted to do the same but decided against it. Here is the story.

There was a chemistry professor in a large college, who had some exchange students in his class. One day while the class was in the lab, the professor noticed one young man, an exchange student, who kept rubbing his back and stretching as if his back hurt.

The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country's government and install a new communist regime. In the midst of his story, he looked at the professor and asked a strange question.

He asked: "Do you know how to catch wild pigs?" The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said that it was no joke.

"You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come every day to eat the free corn.

When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence.

They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side."

The pigs, which are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat that free corn again. You then slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd. Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity."

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening in America .

The government keeps pushing us toward Communism/Socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tax exemptions, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc., while we continually lose our freedoms, just a little at a time.

So there is the parable. It should provoke thought about where we are and where we are going as a country. I would also observe that the last paragraph seems to make the assumption that there is a conspiracy (of sorts) that has, and continues, to "push us toward Communism/Socialism" purposely. I'm not personally ready to take that leap as it stands, but neither do I dismiss the possibility out of hand.

There certainly exist in the world people who would do just that if they could. I question only whether they have been able to be successful enough in the endeavor or whether Thomas Jefferson was correct in predicting that "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

In either case we know one thing for sure, penned pigs usually end up being slaughtered.

Carl Holzhouser, one of the highly paid researchers for this blog sent this piece along. Good work Carl! Expect your compensation to be 20% more on your next find than you received for this one.

The Current Tax Picture Explained - Warning, Very Graphic

noreply@blogger.com (Grant Davies) — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:52:00 +0000

I have spent a lot of time over the last few years promoting Dan Mitchell's blog, International Liberty. If anyone who visited there was disappointed, I apologize. I'm guessing that won't be necessary for most who are regular readers of this site.

It's a terrific source of information and informed opinion from a guy who is as amusing as he is enlightening. Of course the opinions are expressed from a libertarian perspective, but what else would you expect from this blog? It is, after all, about freedom issues.

So here is a picture I swiped from his blog. Warning: the image is graphic and may be disturbing to some people. (Particularly tax accountants, several of whom I count among my friends.)

The post Dan wrote is excellent as usual and I recommend you read it here. The basic theme is about the IRS taxpayer "advocates" and what they are actually advocating. But I couldn't resist posting the picture because I believe that bigger government and more regulations equal less freedom, which is the basic theme of this blog.

Editors note-- In the short time this post has been published this site has been visited by the Justice Dept. and the IRS. Rather odd, I think.

How to Write Good

noreply@blogger.com (Grant Davies) — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 23:07:00 +0000

Plain Language about Gun Control

noreply@blogger.com (Grant Davies) — Sat, 22 Dec 2012 21:47:00 +0000

Penn and Teller, nobody makes their case in more plain language than them. Well, at least Penn. Teller never speaks in public.

(Rude language alert. Some of the words that Penn Gillette uses in this video are likely to be offensive to some people. Okay... most of the words.)

Fighting for Our Right to Due Process

noreply@blogger.com (Grant Davies) — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 22:11:00 +0000

By Grant Davies

If we allow the people who really make the laws in this country, the Senate/House conferees, to make a law in secret that removes our most fundamental right - that of habeas corpus - we will deserve whatever befalls us subsequently.

As a country, we went to sleep and allowed these people to shove Obamacare down the throats of the 3/4 of the American people who responded to the many polls at the time. Now we are stuck with it. At least until it implodes (as it was designed to do) and the debate over changing it to the single payer socialist wet dream begins. But I digress.

So if we sleep through this one, the removal of our right to due process, we might as well turn the clock back to the darkest single day in the history of liberty in America. The day in 1942 when our own government rounded up well over a hundred thousand of our fellow citizens and herded them into concentration camps because they were of Japanese descent. Almost all of their property was taken and never returned. The inadequate apology and the small check the government cut for the few left alive many decades later can never atone for that shame.

Anyone who thinks it can never happen again is foolish. Particularly since these secret conferees and their puppeteers (like the idiot John McCain) have just pulled an "end around" on the 2/3 of the Senators who passed an amendment specifically against such an unconstitutional trampling of our rights just a few weeks ago.

There is one Senator who is fighting with all his might against these forces. (Apologies if there are others who have gotten no attention in the media.) It is Rand Paul of Kentucky. If you value your freedom, I suggest you watch this video. And I suggest you support Senator Paul in his efforts. In this fight Rand Paul is our champion.

From my perspective, this is the single most important issue of the time. Without the right to due process, we have nothing. It has defined who we are as Americans. Compared to the loss of this fundamental right, all other issues before us now shrink to insignificance.

That's my opinion, yours is welcome too.

Treasure, Protect and Mourn Them All -- Reflections on the Newtown Tragedy

noreply@blogger.com (Grant Davies) — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 20:07:00 +0000

The author of the following essay is a mother of three from the Chicago area. It was originally published on a private blog that chronicles the daily lives of her family. I have been given permission to publish it on the sites where I am a contributing writer. Since writing such as this, without expectation, can possibly go viral on the internet, it has been decided to publish it anonymously to protect the privacy of the family. The names of the children have been omitted. Otherwise, it is submitted as written. The perspective of this mother is one that is different from what I have read since the horrific events of last Friday. But I feel it is a reflection of the prevailing perspective of most of the people who have been suffering along with the devastated families of the victims.
Grant Davies

Treasure, Protect and Mourn Them All -- Reflections on the Newtown Tragedy

One thing that will give a person perspective is someone else's misery. Although we have been careful to monitor media in our house and not speak about the recent events in Connecticut, obviously my husband and I have been disturbed and heartbroken about the elementary school children who were gunned down in Newtown. And although it would be painful to learn about this no matter who you are and what your station in life is, this feels particularly painful to us as parents of children who are right around the age of these precious little victims.

When I look at my first grader and her big blue eyes and imagine those eyes being closed forever....when I see my pre-schooler skipping around like her little fairy-elf self, barely touching the ground and imagine never hearing her laugh again...it just destroys me. If I couldn't hold my toddler close to me, as he clutches his blanket and sucks his thumb...I don't know that I could live another day myself. And yet there are parents today who are burying their children one week before Christmas. It hurts to think about it.

What I've found equally frustrating during this time, and it is just an observation really, is that amidst all the reaction, I don't hear people mourning the loss of children everywhere, everyday. Make no mistake, I believe with all my heart that what happened in Newtown was a shocking tragedy and I am mourning the loss of those beautiful children. But I find myself grieving for the children of the south side of Chicago too.

How many of them have been gunned down this school year? Where is the national mourning for these children? Of course there isn't any. Even within our city, we consume these news reports without blinking an eye. We can speculate on the reasons why this is the case. But I won't bother to here, because this isn't a political blog or a blog on social/cultural commentary. However, I have been thinking of the heartbreak that goes on daily for the parents of those children, caught in gang crossfire, and I grieve for them. And how about children all across the globe who live in fear of this sort of thing *every day*? No one expects children in Connecticut to be scared to go to school, thank God. But what about kids in Syria? Or how about child soldiers in Africa? The reality is that the world does a crappy job protecting our children. And every single one of them should be just as treasured and protected and mourned as the ones in Newtown.

I admit, the story has gotten under my skin enough that I've tried harder to stay patient with the kids when they've tested me over the past few days. And when my pre-schooler got ill on Saturday night and my husband stayed with her on the couch, I pulled my first-born into my room and had her sleep with me. All because I could not bear the feeling of being alone and having thoughts of those school children carry me into sleep. Although she was totally asleep when I went in her room, and she is heavy as a sack of concrete mix these days, I carried her into my room and curled my body around hers, reassuring myself that my daughter was alive and healthy and safe, and for at least tonight, we would be together as mother and child.

The risk of living is dying. I know we cannot live in fear and I thank God that we don't. I know I will lose my temper with the kids again. I know I will take them for granted again. We all do this. It's human. Actually, I am not sure how we could survive without this sort of behavior...after all, who could walk around and stay sane if they knew they had to protect a precious jewel every single day - a jewel that has its own thoughts, feelings, actions and plans? It would be impossible.

So we just do the best we can, we apologize when we screw up, we use opportunities like this tragedy to remind ourselves to treasure each moment we're given, and above all, try to love the best we can. It's a disgusting, broken world. I'm taking comfort that for those of us who believe, good always wins and God saves.