Shut up about Obama’s Birth Certificate!

We are six months into Obama’s first term as president and rather than focusing on outrageous spending and money creation, oppressive regulations, and a general loss of liberty which has been accelerated since the Bush Administration, there are still stories about Obama’s Birth Certificate. Why? What is the point and the goal of talking about this?

Let’s assume that he doesn’t have a US Birth Certificate for a second. Ok, now what? Now we remove him from office? Joe Biden becomes President? Is that really an improvement? How would we benefit from having the guy who admitted the country is going bankrupt and then said we should spend more to get out of it, as President?

Or would this invalidate the entire ticket? John McCain becomes President? We have another election? How long would that take and how much would that cost? Is it really a good idea to add political instability to the economic instability? The economy is already suffering in part to huge amounts of uncertainty; how would not having a President lessen that uncertainty?

If we assume that we could get Obama out and replace him with someone else, let’s say we vote in a nice conservative Republican. How does X President (it really doesn’t matter who) change anything? Wouldn’t progressives still control the House and Senate? Wouldn’t the Senate still have 60 votes? It might be somewhat difficult to override a veto in the House and Senate, but after ousting their President, do you think any Democrats would side with the Republicans on anything again?

A new President, no matter who it was, would do nothing to stop the Federal Reserve, the bailouts, or the stimulus. Sonia Sotomayor would probably be pushed through even faster under the guise of maintaining stability. Their reasoning would be that we wouldn’t want to have a President removed AND only 8 Supreme Court Justices.

This argument is as ridiculous as the 9/11 Truth arguments and it serves the same purpose. The 9/11 Truthers waste their time following a stupid conspiracy theory and serve only to make libertarians (and a lot of progressives, but their entire philosophy is crazy) look like nuts and discredits the sane libertarians. The Birth Certificate argument is the conservative equivalent. It makes conservatives and Republicans look like nuts, idiots, racists, and sore losers. Following this path accomplishes nothing except providing some small (but unlikely) glimmer of hope that it could get rid of Obama. It would not fix any of our problems; it would not shrink the government or restore freedom or capitalism. All it could possibly accomplish would be to remove Obama from office.

If removing him from office wouldn’t reverse the path we are on, what is the point? Do the Republicans do this because they are upset that their progressive candidate lost to the Democrat’s progressive candidate? The situation today would be very similar if McCain had won, so removing Obama doesn’t solve anything. Or is it because he is black? Most people who oppose Obama do so because they oppose his policies and philosophy and could care less about his skin color. Ultimately, by continuing with this farce, we are no longer discussing his destructive policies or furthering our goal of undermining them. Following this path will discredit those of us with legitimate complaints against his agenda, and paint us as racists who just can’t stand the idea of having a black man in office. I’m sure, however, that there is a minority of small-minded (read: stupid) people that do oppose him because of his skin color. Those people should be shunned from the movement and we should not allow them to distract those of us with rational and intelligent claims against the President and the progressive agenda in Washington.

Not only is this path dangerous because it discredits our side, but it overlooks the fact that Obama is a master of misdirection. If he has a Birth Certificate why doesn’t he just go on TV and show everyone? This is likely part of his plan. Conservatives and Republicans would be forced to stop talking about it if he debunked it. They would stop wasting their time with this pointless argument and focus on what Obama is really doing. Obama is a political magician. He has us all focused on his left hand while his right hand pulls a Climate Bill/ Energy Tax or government health care plan out of his FDR top hat. While we discuss superfluous things like where he was born, The Fed materializes trillions of dollars out of thin air.

If your goal is simply to get Obama out of office at all costs, then nothing I can say will stop you from wasting your time. However, if you have higher goals in mind, like restoring liberty and capitalism to this country, then I applaud you for realizing that this birth certificate debate is an inane distraction from the real problems we face.

My Email to Wal-Mart

The following is an email I sent to Wal-Mart urging them to rethink their support for the government health care plan. They replied with a generic form letter which was exactly the same as the response another person I know received. If you would like to contact them visit http://walmartstores.com/contactus/feedback.aspx.


"Please forward to the Corporate Headquarters:

I am outraged to learn that Wal-Mart is supporting the ridiculous Socialized Medicine scheme being proposed by the President and Congress.

I realize that Wal-Mart believes this will lower costs by passing the burden of health coverage to the government, however, this is a shortsighted and dangerous game that you are playing. The health care system does need some work, though it is still the best system in the world, just ask all the Canadians that come here when they don't want to wait in long lines in Canada.

The solution, however, is not more government, it is less! The solution lies in the free-market not in government control. People should be given more freedom, lower taxes, and greater choices. Wal-Mart should know this better than anyone.

Your company, while acting in its own interest to make money and become the biggest supermarket in the world, has done more to improve peoples' lives, especially the lower class, than any government program in the history of man. If you believe the government should provide health care, maybe you also believe the government should provide food and should come up with a bipartisan supermarket reform bill? Food is much more important than health care, I need food everyday, so you must also believe that food is too important to be left up to the free-market and should be provided by the government. Maybe the government should use tax money to make low cost food retailers to compete with you, you would support that, right?

If you are going to get in bed with the leaches in Washington, DC and support a system that will increase taxes, take away our freedom, destroy capitalism, and destroy our health care system, than that is not a bed I would like to be in, and will no longer shop at Wal-Mart.

Please, go back to doing what you do best: providing quality goods at low prices and do not sell out yourself and your country by supporting dangerous government schemes for shortsighted gains. Do not change your mind because you will lose me as a costumer, because I will be insignificant compared to the pain you will suffer if supporting a course of action that continues to drive this country towards socialism.

First they came for the banks, then they came for the auto industry, now they are coming for health care, next they pass EFCA, and Cap and Trade, and then they regulate profits and prices, and salaries, and then one day you will wake up and wonder what happened to your company, your country, and your freedom? Once you start this chain of events, you will not be able to stop it. Stop it now before it is to late. Do not support your own destruction!!!"

Jobs are a means, not an ends.

A dangerous and disturbing trend has taken over in America. This is not a recent movement, but it is one that must be understood and stopped before it brings about the end of capitalism and liberty. I am referring to the idea of “creating jobs” as though that is the goal of a productive society. Everywhere you turn, especially during the current economic problems, you hear people talk about how we need to “create jobs” or “get people back to work.” It seems that the only thing President Obama can say without a teleprompter is some version of the above statements. This is a grand misunderstanding of economics and how to create a prosperous economy. Jobs are not an ends, they are a means to an ends and a consequence of prosperity.

People choose to go into business for one goal, to make money. Many times they will also go into business because they enjoy what they are doing and they have a passion for their craft, but if they don’t make a profit it is not a business, it is a hobby. No one starts a business to create jobs. In fact, jobs are a tremendous cost for most businesses. That is why labor tends to be one of the first things cut when I company is in financial trouble. Wages, training, taxes, and benefits are all tremendous costs for a business. So why do businesses ever hire employees if they are such a cost burden? At a certain point the marginal benefit of having the employees will outweigh the marginal costs. That means that once a company grows to a certain size (depending on the company) it becomes more profitable to hire employees and create jobs and less of a cost burden. Therefore, jobs are a result of a growing company and of profit. The less profit a company has the fewer jobs it will provide. If politicians and talking heads understood this and truly wanted to “create jobs” they would encourage companies to make profits and help them cut costs to free up resources for growth. They would cut taxes across the board, corporate, capital gains, property, etc. They would also ease regulations which increase costs and act as barriers to entry for new competitors. This would provide an environment of prosperity and productivity which would lead to more jobs and better paying jobs.

Why are these solutions not being explored by the people who claim to want jobs? One reason is economic illiteracy in this country. Most people do not think about economics or understand much of how it works. They know they want a job or want a better job and they expect the government to be able to get it for them. They believe that jobs are all that matter and that if we create jobs it will lead to prosperity. This is the thinking behind the different “stimulus” packages and other corporate welfare schemes. There was a ballot initiative in Colorado Springs which thankfully failed, that was cleverly called the “Jobs Now” bill. It was nothing more than a corporate welfare scheme which would have redistributed money from property taxes from one group of people and give it to another group (i.e. friends of the city council) with the ridiculous promises of more jobs. How does taking money from one group and giving it to another create anything? Also, how do they expect a company that depends on government handouts to last? They will shakedown the city by promising to move there and create jobs, but what happens then that money runs out? They will be running back to the city with their hands out and threatening to leave. Rather than creating an environment based on low costs of business for the companies, they make the companies dependent on the handouts, like a crack addict looking for his next fix. All of this gets sold to the voters with the promise of creating jobs.

If the goal was just to create jobs, the government could ban heavy machinery on new construction projects. Think of the number of people that would be employed building a new office building if they didn’t use bulldozers and cranes and could use only shovels, ropes, and pulleys? Not only would it take many more workers, but it would take much longer to build, which would provide job security. One man can dig a foundation for a house using an excavator, 100 men can dig it using shovels, and 1000 can dig it using spoons. So the question is, do we want to have a productive society and have one person dig the foundation with an excavator, or do we want to create jobs and have 1000 people dig it with spoons?

Whether the motive is personal gain at another’s expense, stupidity, or a conscience effort to destroy capitalism in the pursuit of power the result is the same. These actions promote corruption, rob some to reward others, and retard progress by creating a society of beggars rather than producers.

Legalized Plunder Becomes Plain Old Stealing

Governments have stolen from their citizens for as long as governments have existed. Fredrick Bastiat, in The Law, used the phrase “legalized plunder” to describe this theft. Legalized plunder is theft that becomes legitimized and legalized when the criminals make the laws. It is commonly known as taxes. The looters have conditioned us to believe that this is how it has to be; we are told the only constants in life are death and taxes. They have also led us to believe that when money is forcibly taken from us without our consent that it is ok when the government is the one holding the gun.

Due to “recent budget problems” (a.k.a. the states spent too damn much of your money) California and Kansas are going to “delay” paying income tax refunds. They will not be paying the citizens any interest or fees for keeping the money, and who knows if they will ever actually pay the money back. These states have crossed the line from legal plunder to plain old stealing.

The income tax refund is when the government takes more from you than it is legally allowed to steal so they give part of it back (without interest). Up until now, they have been nice criminals and gave back some of what they stole (in Colorado they were forced by TABOR to give it back). Wouldn’t it be great if the mugger in the park would send you a check for some of the money he took from you?

These governments have decided that in these tough economic times they need your money more than you do (just like the mugger in the park). Better be careful next time you buy a car. Use exact change because GM might decide to keep the change to help with their budget problems.

Colorado did this in 2005 with the passage of Referendum C. At least they had the decency to ask us if they could steal our money and let the tyranny of the majority punish the minority. California and Kansas didn’t bother with that formality.

Where is the moral outrage from the citizens of these states? Where are the cries of “No taxation without representation?” How much more abuse are we going to accept from our governments?

Selfish Students

Everyday there is talk about selfish, greedy businessmen interested only in profit. They say these selfish people should “give back” to the community and have “social responsibility.” These businessmen don’t need so much money and it isn’t fair.

What about the selfish, greedy high school and college students who are only concerned with grades? They get better grades than they need to graduate. They do nothing to help those who are struggling to get by. Students drop out of school everyday because they can’t make it and these selfish students are getting A’s and B’s. When will these students “give back” to their fellow students? Where is their “social responsibility” to sacrifice their 4.0 to help a struggling student?

In college, most students need a C or C+ to pass their class. In high school they need D’s in most cases. If these students only need a C or D to pass their class, why are they so selfish and get A’s and B’s? Rather than spending three hours every night doing homework, why don’t they do one hour of homework to get a C and spend the other two hours doing the homework of struggling students? Some students may not be as smart or as ambitious. They might work, play sports, or like to party and not have time to study and do their homework. Is it fair that they should fail while others get better grades than they need?

These selfish students then use their excessive grades to get into good colleges or graduate schools. They then go on to get good jobs and become the selfish businessmen. Other students have to go to community colleges or go straight to work after high school. Is it fair that some students should get to go to better colleges just because they spent extra time studying and doing homework?

In order to have the same type of fair school systems that many want in our business world, we need to denounce these selfish students just as we denounce entrepreneurs and CEO’s. These students should be responsible for the grades of their fellow students. The selfish, overachieving students should also be restricted to the number of hours they can study and do homework so that the other students have a chance to compete. In the spirit of “social responsibility,” those students who have the time to study more, should be required to do the work of those students who can’t or won’t. They should work according to their ability, to give to others based on their need.

These are the ideas that are expected of our businesses, why shouldn’t we expect it at all levels? We denounce the rich and the successful as having more than they need. Why do we celebrate students who get better grades than they need? We hate the rich and want the government to level the playing field, but we call the selfish students “valedictorians” and let them give speeches at graduation. We give them honors, respect, and pride them on their selfish pursuit of excessive grades.

The problem is not that we celebrate those who earn better grades than they need, but that we denounce those who earn more money than they need. We celebrate scholastic achievement but denounce productive achievement. We don’t expect students to go against their self interest and give back to the less fortunate students, but we expect it from the producers. Our heroes should be the people who live to pursue their own happiness and self interest; those who do not sacrifice for others or ask others to sacrifice for them. Ayn Rand described man as a, “heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”