American Republic Online

John Mauldin asks a great question:

The danger in all this is that politicians who have little economic literacy create a hostile environment with their rhetorical poison, with both sides feeling the need to play to their “home crowd.” That is a very dangerous environment.

It won’t happen, but I would like to see the following question asked in the presidential debates to those (like Hillary Clinton, Obama and Dodd, etc.) who basically advocate a weaker dollar.

“Why are you advocating a weak dollar policy? Why do you want American wage earners to pay 25% more for the goods we buy from foreign countries? Do you really think there is no connection between the value of the Chinese currency and the rest of the currencies of the world? Do you think American consumers need to send even more money overseas and get less for our dollars? Do you think the American consumer is so well off they can afford to pay more and that it will have no affect on the US economy? Do you realize that a 25% lower dollar will mean a rise in world oil prices? Do you think there is no connection between the value of the dollar and US prosperity?”

Read the full article »

In the aftermath of the bridge collapse tragedy, we have some interesting theories on the real reason for the catastrophic failure, because government mismanagement and incompetence seem so far fetched as to stretch credulity.

My favorite theory is by Joseph Romm former Clinton Administration official and now a senior fellow at the Clinton founded Center for American Progress. He asks “Did Climate Change Contribute To The Minneapolis Bridge Collapse?” Now before you doubt his premise, consider how his own in depth research swayed his own ideas on the matter:

I was skeptical at first, but after doing a Google search — and after NBC reported Sunday that National Transportation Safety Board investigators are “looking at everything” including “the weather” — I think it is a legitimate question to ask.

That’s right: a google search. Oh and a news report mentioning the word “weather”. Joseph didn’t become a senior fellow for nothing. Further review of this breakthrough is additionally entertaining. Romm goes on to compile further evidence: the channel 4 weatherman’s blog and a local resident’s thoughts - it was a hot summer. Joseph dismisses a structural engineer’s thoughts on his growing theory and instead offers his own: did engineers really design bridges to withstand the extreme 90 degree summer heat? Where such extremes really foreseeable?

Read the full article »

That’s right, now the “experts” are saying that it actually pollutes our planet it more to walk than drive… Speechless? Well don’t let common sense block you to the intellectual intricacies that is modern ecological thought.

The problem with walking, is that you burn calories doing it.  And since only a few environmentalist favor letting us die to save the planet (Voluntary Human Extinction Movement), you need to replace those used  calories though eating food.  Now the truth becomes apparent.  The food we eat is polluting more than the cars we drive.

I’m not making this up.  But the problem goes beyond the actual processing of the food, it’s the growing of the food that really racks up the global warming inducing gases.  Now I know what many of you are saying… how can a cow - nature itself - pollute the planet?  The answer is in the definition of pollution.  Thanks to the scientists on the US Supreme Court, CO₂ is now considered a pollutant.    Which is how a typical “1kg of meat [can] cost the Earth 36kg in global warming gases” (CO₂), because cows -well- they breath a lot during their lifetime.

Cows, in fact, are among what those in the industry call double polluters.  That’s right cows also produce methane!  “The gas, released during the digestive process, is 21 times more harmful than CO₂.” I would call the 21x more of an average, because I personally would rate a really bad cow fart as 50x or even 100 times as bad as their breath.

Read the full article »

This snippet comes from the Sunday GOP debate. Giuliani exposes a flawed assumption made about taxation so well that I grabbed for it’s instructive value. He uses actual real world numbers from when he was the Mayor of NY to support his assertion. A rare thing these days when many politicians are throwing around obviously made up numbers like they are facts - for instance Mrs. Clinton saying “a lot of people did extremely well during the nineties… when economic policies lifts a hundred times more people out of poverty than in the Reagan years.” (emphasis added - 8/7/07 interview with Dylan Ratigan, CNBC.) - not that anyone calls them on it.

David Yepsen (Des Moines Register):”Mayor Giuliani, the Republican dogma against taxes now precluding the ability of you and your party to come up with the revenues that the country needs to fix its bridges?”

GIULIANI: David, there’s an assumption in your question that is not necessarily correct. It’s sort of the Democratic liberal assumption. I need money, I raise taxes.

YEPSEN: Then what are you going to cut sir, what do you cut?

Read the full article »

The Daily Show demonstrates hypocrisy, and shows that the Global Warming Emergency really isn’t.  If our world was about to tip over the precipice, seeing wind turbines on the horizon would be a small price to pay.  Here’s a hint: don’t say “the debate is over” and then refuse to allow for real, differential change.  The alarmism is unfruitful and turns too many people off.  Why is it that everything is going to bring the end of the world?

The New York City Council has a measure before it that would ban the use of the word “bi—,” and “ho.”

The term is hateful and deeply sexist, said Councilwoman Darlene Mealy of Brooklyn, who has introduced a measure against the word, saying it creates “a paradigm of shame and indignity” for all women.

Great. I hope it is starting to become clear: if we allow it, government will grow and we will be forced to live we are “supposed to.” While I would probably agree with Councilwoman Mealy regarding the its effect (provided she tones down the rhetoric), using the force of government do dictate how she thinks people should behave is absolutely unacceptable. This paternalism has been creeping for years now: seat belt laws, trans fat bans, etc. While there is value in the concern, why do we need to government to tell us how to live, and “watch out for our well-being?” If I want to drive without a seat belt, what’s it to you? Or to the state legislator for that matter? I’m not threatening anyone else.

Coming back to legislating speech, how will they enforce it? Can you imagine a cop driving out to someone’s house and writing a ticket for what they said? Well, how about writing a ticket for smoking? Both are equally ridiculous, and tax already burdened resources. Shouldn’t police be chasing bank robbers and murderers?

Read the full article »

It’s extremely rare, but it does happen on occasion. Thanks to YouTube you can see the fun few minutes without the drool inducing hours of in-between. These clips occurred after the Republicans won a close vote to bar illegal immigrants from receiving any federal funds apportioned in the agricultural spending bill for employment or rental assistance. Shortly after the final vote was gaveled and the outcome announced, there was a small hubbub and a new tally was announced: victory Democrats.

The swing came from a few votes that were “missed” in the first tally. Now since the House exists to take and tally votes, one can only point to incompetence or ethical issues in this Democratically run congress.

• Video: House Erupts in Chaos
• Video: Republican Whip Blunt Addresses the House Floor

Read the full article »

Following up on our Cigar Tax story, I’ve found out even more. In fact, The more I dig into this legislation the more surprises I find.

First there was the amendment to limit free insurance to people at 2x the poverty line instead of 4x or more (you know the supposed rich) - proposed by Republicans, voted down by Democrats.

Then another amendment to require 60 votes (to make it more difficult) for increasing excise taxes that disproportionately affects taxpayers with income less than 2x the poverty line… proposed by Republicans, voted down by Democrats. Am I in the twilight zone? When did the Dems & Repubs switch places on defending the poor?

And here’s some more proof that the goal was universal government health care:

Read the full article »

Great cartoon and history lesson about the true impact of the United States on the world:

On the Fourth of July Americans will cynically celebrate the greatest setback world progress has ever endured in all of human history. The rest of humankind will, of course, be grieving over the dark day when the United States of America was born. To understand the full scope of this tragedy we must look back at the pre-7/04 world and see what it was like to live on planet Earth before 1776.

Prior to July 4, 1776, not a single person in the world starved, got sick, worked hard for a living, or experienced any pain and anxiety. No one had ever been oppressed or unfairly exploited because the oppressive and unfair American system had not yet been created…

Read the full article »