Republican qualifications to be president

On June 14th Rush Limbaugh did a monologue during Hour 2 on the discrepancy of the media's requirement that Republican presidential candidates have experience and qualifications for office against the media's allowance for Obama's own and his cabinet officers' lack of experience.

Rush repeatedly asked the rhetorical question what was Obama's qualifications? Why the difference?

I believe that I see a simple answer in the media's liberal viewpoint of the world. Democrats are the carriers of the Holy Grail of Socialism. Wherever they bear the Grail, good will follow.

The Republicans only useful purpose is as servants of the Grail. Republicans best serve the Grail of Socialism by running Socialistic programs efficiently. Republicans are only useful as managers. As anyone knows, good managers must be experienced. If the Republican is experienced, he serves the media two ways: first he has demonstrated ability (which fits the media's desire to appear logical) and he has demonstrated his fealty and subservience to the Socialist Grail by refusing to dismantle their utopian vision.

A good manager then is one who is efficient and follows his master's orders without question. The good Republican is a slave to the Socialist Grail.

Since the good Democrat bears the Grail, he can serve the utopian vision by merely advocating for the expansion of Socialism. The programs he supports don't need to be efficient. They don't need to be questioned. They need to be implemented with haste before the Republicans stop the growth of utopia.

From the premise, so much becomes obvious. Democrats are comfortable with Islamic notions of dhimmitude, where good Christians and Jews don't need to share in Mohammed's vision but they must be subservient to it. Democrats are comfortable with Chinese notions that good capitalists can be tolerated as long as the capitalists stay subservient to the Communist Party and the People's Liberation Army.

Conservative Republicans and Tea Parties are despised simply because they don't know their proper place in society. They won't hail the Socialist Grail or its bearers.

Bin Laden killed because . . .

Obama got Osama because Obama told Panetta to getthe bad guy. Hmmmm.

Bush never gave that instruction to the CIA before?

Obama decided there was enough info?

So it was today? That at least explains the late night news.

Bin Laden Dead! Why the late night announcement?

Bin Laden is dead as of a week ago.

Who leaked the news that forced Obama out of bed to announce it?

They waited this long. Why not a few more hours?

if government union payroll deductions persist ...

Where Republicans fail to get rid of union dues for government employee unions, maybe Republicans need to come up with an alternative. I would propose that all government employees be mandated to pay into a fund for the funding and growth of Christian churches. The employee can then choose which church they want the money to go to. The keys to this plan would be that the employee would contribute to the growth of something better. All employees would be required to contribute to Christian churches. This would include atheists, Jews, and Buddhists . If these Christian churches would find it appropriate to use the money to open Christian schools, that would be acceptable. If these Christian churches would find it acceptable to give money to antiabortion groups, that would be acceptable. If these Christian churches chose to give the money to organizations of supported Christian causes but eventually ended up in the Republican Party or the coffers of republican candidates, that would be acceptable. Like the required contributions to the government employee unions, the rationale for the required deductions from payroll would have a surface explanation that sounded good for the average person to see that they were contributing to a larger calling. It would also have the ability to fund political action on the half of a particular party. If you have the added benefit of allowing all the people handling the money to be able to write themselves big paychecks in order to justify their actions in promoting this Christian cause. If we are to use the rationales proposed by the Democrats to justify mandatory payroll deductions to democratic government employee unions, this plan passes muster all fronts.

Calorie Consumption Cost

The discussion of energy always seems to make little sense to the general public.  I would encourage conservatives to create an index of costs for calories consumed. 


Part of this idea goes to the old Clinton considered BTU Tax.  They wanted to tax the fuels used based on their power delivered for work in vehicles, machinery, etc.

This measure is meaningless to the everyday lives of consumers, so it was ideal for Democrat gamesmanship.

The same energy can be measured in calories.  While the average voter cannot really define a calorie as "the heat necessary to raise one gram of water one degree Celsius" (if I am not mistaken), the average voter knows how many calories some of their foods are and how much they cost.

That seems like a greater measuring stick to discuss the ridiculous costs of solar energy versus oil or coal.  Adjust in the subsidies and taxes for various points of view and we have a real conversation.

Just imagine a mom discussing the CCC of her cereal versus oil versus solar energy.  That is real economic analysis at the voter's level.

Down and Out on $250,000 a Year - TheFiscalTimes.com

Down and Out on $250,000 a Year - TheFiscalTimes.com:

While this analysis is very gentle toward the quarter million dollar family, it is still an interesting different perspective.

The key points for me as a bankruptcy attorney are that, just because a family can qualify for a traditional mortgage at 80LTV (translation: 20% down, which is loan at 80% of home value) and get car loans for two nice cars, that is not necessary good financial practice.

Qualifying for a large loan does not mean living comfortably with a large loan.

The lessons here are not income related. The lessons are ratio related. The banks loan money at acceptable ratios -- as the bank defines "acceptable."

If the family were to try these goals from the start, what would the difference be?

1. Payoff student loans aggressively within about 5 years of starting this experiment.

2. Take a home mortgage with the same down payment but seek a 50LTV qualification. That means lower home value which means likely a smaller house, smaller utility bills (if house is actually smaller), cheaper homeowner association dues, lower property taxes, smaller yard so less costly landscaping and maintenance, fewer rooms to fill with furniture and furnishings, less storage space so less clutter possible, etc.

3. Keep cars for 8-10 years (mileage and maintenance allowing).

Essentially this family will have more disposable income inside of 5 years than they have now.

It is very conceivable, assuming only a 10% increase in recreational spending, they could have $100,000 saved outside of retirement plans.

Now they can upgrade homes, keep the same ratios, without severely affecting their costs of living. Why? All the income now spent on student loans and car payments might be available for the larger mortgage. The money previously saved on house maintenance, property taxes, and landscaping, may no longer be saved, but a cash savings built up gives breathing room. The prior payments toward principal on the mortgage become additional leverage (assuming a break even or better on the old home). in the new down payment.

The cash in savings is generating interest or dividends. It should grow nominally in most markets (see "modern portfolio theory" articles to outline investment methods).

The key to living better is limiting loans, especially home mortgages. Realtors have many wonderful things to say about mortgages and their interest deductions. They are true -- as far as they go. But realtors are not tax advisors. They don't look at the added costs of more expensive homes like higher property tax payments, more rooms to furnish, more landscaping costs, larger utility bills, larger homeowner association dues, etc. I would hazard a guess that the interest deduction from your income taxes is exceeded by the increased costs of ownership. That doesn't even address the "keeping up with the Joneses" problem.

If the old lesson about enemies is "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer," the financial equivalent is "Keep your loans small, and your mortgage smaller."

Another old line is "The path to Hell is paved with good intentions." I would suggest a financial spin, "The path to Bankruptcy Court is paved with a large mortgage." For the more financially technical minds, "The path to Bankruptcy Court is paved with a large LTV."

Julian Assange: Should Espionage Act Be Used Against Him? - The Daily Beast

Julian Assange: Should Espionage Act Be Used Against Him? - The Daily Beast:

Being of a libertarian mindset, while being firmly Republican, I do not like to press freedoms into shapes that cause those same freedoms not to look and act as intended. It is like taking a jelly donut and pressing into a Santa cookie cutter, but calling it a donut. Is it still a donut?

With Assange case, it becomes clear that most proponents of free speech, like the ACLU or their wannabes, don't know what they are talking about. Free speech is not about speech with impunity.

Free speech, as aptly described for our Founding Fathers' edification by Lord Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Common Law, suggested that freedoms of speech and press are about the freedom from being prevented from airing an opinion. Blackstone explains that this is not without consequence. After a thought has been expressed, there still can be legal consequences for the speaker or writer. He uses the law of libel and slander as examples. The harm can be done but the harm can lead to punishment.

In this case, we have perfect example of Blackstone's theory. Asange can legally have protected First Amendment rights but still be punished. The government did not act to prevent publication. Asange's rights were protected.

Now the punishment issue. Is it appropriate?

In private industry, there is a strong notion of Intellectual Property Rights and Trade Secrets, as demonstrated in the growing use of the Uniform Trade Secret Act throughout the states. In this law, a company can create an asset that is its right to keep secret. The employees agree not to disclosure, and the employer can take an employee to court to enforce the trade secret. This includes the right to stop the person's freedom of speech about private information. It includes the right to seize information where practicable from certain hands beyond the employee.

My complaint in these types of cases is that we treat the government's national security secrets as legal less protected than commercial trade secrets. Why? Because the press is involved. That is crazy. It is incoherent.

A private person has the right to remain protected in his person, property, and papers. Why? Because the Constitution says so? Not according to Jefferson's writing in the Declaration of Independence. It is because of unalienable rights given by God. It is because of Natural Law. The Constitution does not create the right. It recognizes something that already existed. See Amendments IX and X for further clarification of the point.

In the same vein, a government has a Natural Law right to its own secrets. The First Amendment does not supersede that governmental right. The Federal Government owns the intellectual property that Manning agreed not to disclose by signing up for the military and security clearance. Manning stole government property in the form of National Security Secrets.

The Courts can and should exercise equitable jurisdiction to seize such intellectual property on the basis of clear and convincing evidence of irreparable harm. That includes such information in the hands of a citizen or a foreign national of a friendly nation. (My legal analysis purposely stops at the water's edge for the simplicity of my key argument. The analysis of comity between nations to further this analysis is another topic.)

The problem in this case is not the risk of damage to freedom of speech or of the press. The problem is the accepted analysis of this case misses the point that property has been stolen.

Manning remains free, even after his theft, to say or print what he wants about his observations or opinions. He does not have the right to convert, sell, alienate, convey, or waste another person's intellectual property that he has agreed not to publish.

Assange is the recipient of stolen property. He cannot exercise dominion over that property that he did not receive as a bona fide purchaser for value. Even then, the theft prevents Assange from treating it as his own.

The problem with my analysis is not that I am incorrect. The problem is that political class would find this analysis devastating to their normal method of operation.

Newspapers that receive information that does not belong to the source would be subject to seizure and court intervention.

The problem that we have is that court's treatment of free speech arose over decades where we did not have a good operational concept of intellectual property. All utterances were treated as equal without regard to the information's title of ownership.

My analysis would put the courts in greater play and would have the effect of increasing the consequences to spies and wannabe whistle-blowers who fall outside the scope of whistle-blower safe harbor requirements.

Still the analysis allows a better means of stopping distribution of government information and proclaiming a natural right to do so.

The courts would be kept busy reinterpreting the caselaw, but the effectiveness and predictability of those decisions following this analysis would quickly reduce litigation at the appellate level and focus primarily on the merits of any particular case.

The mess of rules that we have now essentially creates the Wikileaks' problem becoming more common rather than less.

Thoughts on Citizenship & Immigration

I have been reading Andrew McCarthy's book the Grand Jihad. He repeatedly emphasizes freedom defined by individual choices to attempt to improve oneself versus the Communist and Islamistic definition of freedom as freedom from want or need.

He discusses the desire of Communists and Islamists to kill or repress anyone who does not comply with their taking life, liberty, or property to create the utopian freedom from want.

In the Islamistic mindset, a former Muslim is an apostates. The punishment for apostasy is death by execution or assassination.

Our problem with our borders and the risk of naturalized citizens with these ideals is impossible in our current method. Once a terrorist gets US citizenship he is difficult to treat like the enemy combatant or spy that he really is.

One of our best defenses is the Oath of Citizenship. A person who violates the Oath can have his citizenship revoked.

Clearly in the American experience we do not seek to require a person to conform to a state-defined religion or approved sets of religion. We want uniformly enforced laws without regard to the person's religion.

I have a simple proposition: amend the oath to add a line, "I swear or affirm that I do not seek nor am I currently affiliated with any group that seeks to physically punish or kill persons for not complying with specific political or religious beliefs. I further swear or affirmed that I have disclosed all past such affiliations in my application of citizenship."

This simple amendment would prevent Islamic terrorists from legally obtaining citizenship or keeping citizenship once the oath is taken. Past affiliation then do not prevent citizenship, but failure to fully disclose does. Current affiliation should prevent citizenship.

This pattern of oath makes sense. Islam allows Muslims to lie under oath to non-believers. The oath being enforced by God or Allah is not the point. The point is that perjury would be a basis for removing the protection of citizenship.

This oath would merely preventing foreign nationals from moving to the states as trained terrorists and obtaining citizenship under false pretenses. The naturalized Muslim father who kills his daughter for converting to Christianity or adultery can have his citizenship revoked.

The problem becomes for religious Muslims who earnestly want to be American citizens. By attending a mosque regularly, they would have to face the conflict of the Koran with the Constitution.

I will not presume how they would have to resolve the inherent conflict between those two documents to become an American citizens. They know the Koran and the laws of Sharia better than I do.

They should be forced to create a solution to the problem before becoming an American.

Similarly we would need to deal with the problem of American-born Muslim children under the XIVth Amendment's requirements. Such a non-American terrorist could bear and raise a child here. Such a child should not be required to swear an oath of allegiance.

My solution would be to prevent visas from being granted to persons not able to swear such an oath for entry unless under diplomatic passport. Diplomats' kids born in the US don't get US citizenship.

We should grant free immigration rights to those who wish to come here, so long as they are obligated to swear they do not seek physical punishment for apostates. The right of free exercise of religion remains without a cloak of First Amendment claims to physically coerce or threaten others to be part of that religion.

That is true freedom of religion, uniformly enforced.

The Politics of Rare Earth - China Tracker - What a superpower wants - Forbes

The Politics of Rare Earth - China Tracker - What a superpower wants - Forbes:

This is a wonderful summary of the problem that some of my business friends have run into. It creates unnecessary problems for them.

Did you know about it?

RealClearMarkets - Gold Isn't Expensive, Instead the Dollar Is Cheap

RealClearMarkets - Gold Isn't Expensive, Instead the Dollar Is Cheap: This is a really good article about gold and international monetary exchange.

As for China, for Geithner et al to suggest that a stronger yuan will make Chinese goods less competitive on the world stage (thus supposedly making ours more desirable) is the equivalent of a restaurant chef arguing that a shorter minute would reduce the amount of time necessary to cook a soufflé. In truth, money is only a veil, and if the yuan rises even more against the dollar, Chinese goods will continue to arrive here (thankfully) en masse much as Japanese goods did after 1971 when the yen began a 20-year climb against the dollar.

The above is the case because while goods priced in yuan will be more expensive in dollar terms, the costs of goods necessary to manufacture Chinese products will by definition decline. In yuan terms everything will become cheaper for Chinese manufacturers, which means any yuan strength will be mitigated by reduced costs of production.

Even better for China, a revaluation upward would be dynamite for an economy suffering from a devaluation authored in the U.S. The seen here is China's growing economic clout, but the unseen is how much greater China's growth would be if its currency weren't pegged to an inflationary dollar which, on the margin, is making investment in China more of a challenge too.