Racial Politics

When Barack Obama was elected President in 2008, a great many Americans naively believed it would usher in a new era of racial harmony.  Instead, the issue of race in our politics has gotten much worse.  In some ways, the relations between the races has been set back years.

What has caused this setback?  Why hasn't the election of America's first black president improved race relations?  The answer to that question rests on a number of factors.

First, the President has not been an active and vocal advocate for harmony and has, at times, stoked the hard feelings existing between Whites, Blacks and Latinos.  But Barack Obama didn't create these hard feelings.  They existed long before Obama ever became President.  Though it can be said that Obama hasn't done much to promote reconciliation.

Republicans have suffered a defamation at the hands of the Democrats and their leftist political allies.  The slander stretches back over 50 years into the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations, when Martin Luther King agreed to promote the Democratic Party to his followers in exchange for the passage of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts.  Although it required more pervasive Republican support for its passage, credit for the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts never went to the Republicans.  Instead, Democrats took credit for it, just as black voters were switching party affiliation.

By the time Ronald Reagan was running for President in 1980, those generations who grew up and achieved adulthood during the period of Jim Crow, were middle aged and older.  An entire new generation, born and raised during the Civil Rights era, knew only of a time when the righteous cause of racial equality was an issue.  As the Republican Party struggled to stem the loss of their former black constituents, they appealed to white voters who were feeling ignored by the Democratic Party's new emphasis on race.

This reversal has been routinely mischaracterized by racist Democrats who charge the Republican Party with puposely recruiting former segregationists, klansmen, white supremacists and other unsavory characters, all of whom were welcomed in the Democratic Party.  When the most prominent Dixiecrat of them all, Strom Thurmond, announced he was switching party affiliations, the Democrats had the scapegoat they needed.  For, while it was true that Thurmond had been Segregations's greatest proponent, he renounced those views to become a Republican.  The GOP never adopted any Dixiecrat platform items.  Furthermore, none of the other Dixiecrat Democrats ever changed their party affiliations, nor were they required to renounce their segregationist views.  Despite the fact that all these Southern Senators and Governors remained Democrats, the Republican Party was smeared as the racists.  It's a falsehood that lives on to this very day.

Tragically, the Republican Party has been so savaged by these slanders and the Democratic Party has become so positively entrenched in the mind of the average black voter, Republicans do not compete for the black vote.  This has served to reinforce feelings that the Republican Party is hostile to people of color.

Still, over the years, the failure of the Great Society programs and the utter devastation it has wreaked upon the people those programs were intended to help, who are disproportionately black, has opened the door enough to let in a sliver of sunlight.  But as that slim opportunity has presented itself to Republicans before and gone untapped, a historic twist of irony may be about to kick that door open a bit wider, shedding the light of opportunity enough, even the Republican Party in its blindness might recognize it.

In the sixth year of the Obama Presidency, no group has had their fortunes suffer more in America than African Americans.  As hopeful as Obama's Presidency was in 2009, today it seems as hopeless.  While there is no doubt the vast majority of blacks still support President Obama and support him strongly, it appears clear to even the most casual observer, that between a quarter to one-third of black Obama supporters have had their fill.

Sensing the loss of black enthusiasm diminishing into ambivalence or even support for Republicans, Democrats are playing racial politics in the most vile manner.  They even go so far as to warn of racial violence, like lynch mobs, if a Republican is elected.  It's worked in the past, but even if it doesn't work this time by just a handful of percentage points, it would spell an absolute catastrophe for the Democratic Party.

In the interests of the future of the nation, but also in the interests of all her people, black, white, latin, asian and anyone else, let's all agree that the use of fear, racism and racial violence need to be repudiated.  And today is a good day for it to happen.  Right here.  Right now.The myth of Dixiecrats becoming Republicans

President Obama has been heavily criticized by always reacting with surprise at events many others believed were not only predictable, but expected.  Criticism has ranged from sheer stupidity to cynical political motivations.  Neither are the likely reason.

This podcast examines what I believe to be is the real issue.  Using the principles of information theory, President Obama's continual surprises are analyzed.  The result gives an interesting insight into modern Liberalism generally and how it manifests itself in the person of Barack Obama, in particular.

The engine of economic growth is the product of the creative and enterprising mind. No society is able to sustain itself without economic growth and while the engine of economic growth is human creativity, it wasn't always thought to be so.  In fact, classical economists believed human creativity and innovation were limited, leaving economies largely in a static state, requiring government intervention to manage and often redistribute incomes and wealth.

Human beings, however, proved to be quite innovative and their innovation is not limited by the distribution of wealth or knowledge, but by the distribution of power.  That is, the means by which ideas can be brought to reality.  For, it is precisely the lack of creativity that leads to failure of societies and entire cultures.

The question should always have been, what are the necessary conditions for creativity to flourish and once understood, how can those conditions be harnessed into organizing principles of society? Conversely, it must also be understood how and under which conditions creativity is suppressed.  It is the latter that has been so destructive to societies throughout history.  Interestingly enough, the answer to those questions are contained in the principles of the American Founding and free market capitalism.

The ideal, or the equilibrium position is that balance between power and knowledge which allows for the most creativity. Realizing this equilibrium means we must first understand two, often separate things:

1. who holds the power?
2. who holds the knowledge?

Knowledge, being a function of the human mind is dispersed among all living people.  Knowledge is perfectly decentralized.  There is no collective brain or center of knowledge.  Knowledge is resident in every living, conscious person.

Power, on the other hand, is not.  In societies, power tends toward centralization.  The American Founders recognized this and ordered a society and government that was the least centralized it could be and still hold a union together.

As power becomes concentrated into the hands of fewer and fewer people, creativity and innovation necessarily decline simply because fewer and fewer people have the power to turn an innovative idea into something tangible.  Despite the Founders attempts, centralization of power is inexorable, but resistance to that centralization has ofttimes been wanting.

Today, we live in a country where the move toward the further centralization of power has accelerated, stifling economic growth and giving much of the public a sense of stagnation and decline.

Consider for a moment, the brilliant young man with what he thinks is a great idea, entirely the creation of his mind. Without any power to bring his idea into reality, or even attempt it, the economy will not realize any growth, or if the idea fails, it will not realize the new information regarding the failure of the idea. Understanding failure is also important because with failure comes information valuable to successive creators. Information necessary to avoid taking failed pathways. The young man, however, needs to be empowered in some way to simply attempt his creation. But if power is strictly centralized, beyond the reach of the creative, both power and knowledge are wasted.

It is in this model, that we can understand why central governments never seem to work and how societies run in such a manner, have crippling economic conditions. When power is so centralized as to be walled off from the creative minds, economic retardation results, creativity disappears and government does things that appear to be stupid, nonsensical and even tyrannical.

The United States of America, just prior to the Industrial Revolution, was in a state of near perfect equilibrium between knowledge and power. With power so decentralized, in a constitutional republic, where laws and rules were infinitely more predictable than today, creativity exploded and more people were moved out of grinding poverty than at any time in human history. This equilibrium was upset once more when the successes of the Industrial Revolution, ironically, altered the power structure, which has never really been properly addressed since then.

Ultimately, if America is to be a prosperous nation again, it will require great leadership. Leadership with the kind of courage we don't have now and from the kind of people who don't run our government today. We need to disempower central government, repeal many thousands of laws and regulations. In other words, we need to re-establish, as close as we can, the conditions nearest equilibrium between power and knowledge. If we can even come close, it will lead to still another great economic boom for America and the world once again.

Everyone can understand how the balance between power and knowledge fuels economic growth, simply by looking at the internet. The internet gives us a head start in re-establishing the balance between power and knowledge.  The internet has democratized power in a way never achievable at any point in human history. Through the internet, the creativity and ingenuity of the human mind now has a vehicle through which ideas can be tested, proven and realized.

Were it not for the democratizing influence on power resulting from the internet, it is difficult to imagine how a Steve Jobs would have revolutionized the music industry with iTunes, iPods and Apple.  It's hard to imagine how the innovative genius of Mark Zuckerberg could have resulted in Facebook, or how the simple addressing of the need for news and information could have led to the overwhelming popularity of Matt Drudge and his Drudge Report.  Those giants are only several of the most prominent beneficiaries of the true influence of the internet:  as a tool of democratized economic power available to anyone, limited only by their own ability to be innovative and creative.

The internet, however, is but one realm of the economy. Yet it provides a stark, modern day example of explosive economic growth possible when knowledge and power are in equilibrium.

Our policy makers and representatives ought to be lobbied to bring that same equilibrium to every single aspect of the world economy. The benefits waiting for the entire human race are immeasurable.

It's time to do away with a few myths about the price of gasoline.  This podcast will help destroy some common myths:

• The myth of "they".  "They" get blamed for everything, including high gasoline prices.  But who are "they"?  Do "they" really exist?
• They myth of "greedy oil companies".  Companies of all kinds pursue the maximum profit because they have a fiduciary duty, but are oil companies unlike other companies?
• The myth of who makes the most money on a gallon of gas.  The answer will surprise you.
• The myth of oil companies controlling the market supply of gas and oil.

"They control everything."  "They make you pay whatever they want."  Everyone has heard these kind of comments, or made them.  But when asked, nobody seems to know quite who "they" are.  It is the tendency of people to suspect a conspiratorial force that has the power to control things.  The reality, though, is there is no real "they".  The world is much more chaotic than people realize.  Sometimes, it's more comforting to believe someone is in control of things.  The bottom line:  when it comes to gasoline pricing, there is no "they."

The truth is, only one American oil company is among the top producers in the world.  According to a 2010 article in Forbes Magazine online, here are the top ten oil companies in the world:

1.   Aramco, Saudi Arabia  8.2 million barrels per day
2.   National Iranian Oil Company, Iran  3.8 million barrels per day
3.   Pemex, Mexico  2.9 million barrels per day
4.   Iraq National Oil Company, Iraq  2.5 million barrels per day
5.   Exxon Mobil, USA  2.5 million barrels per day
6.   BP, Great Britain  2.5 million barrels per day
7.   CNPC, China  2.3 million barrels per day
8.   ADNOC, Abu Dhabi  2.3 million barrels per day
9.   Kuwait Oil Company, Kuwait  2.3 million barrels per day
10. PDVSA, Venezuela  2.2  million barrels per day

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, a 42 U.S. gallon barrel of crude oil yields about 45 gallons of petroleum products. This gain from processing the crude oil is similar to what happens to popcorn, which gets bigger after it is popped.

Once refined, those 45 gallons of product are broken down as follows:

• 19 gallons - gasoline
• 12 gallons - diesel
• 6   gallons - other products
• 4   gallons - jet fuel
• 2   gallons - liquified petroleum gases
• 2   gallons - heavy fuel oil and home heating oil

Gasoline, comprising about 42% of a barrel's output, would cost about $2.22 per gallon in terms of the price of the oil itself, if a barrel of oil cost $100.  Assuming the cost of the shipping (ie., pipelines & tanker ships) and processing (refineries) are largely sunk costs, and therefore negligible in terms of additional marginal cost for making a gallon of gas, the oil company would add about 28 cents, or 11% to the price of the gas sold to a gas station.  Exxon/Mobil averaged about 10% margin on sales.  That puts the price to your local gas station, at about $2.50 per gallon.

Then the gas station, naturally, must mark up their cost to you.  Let's assume their take is about the same as Exxon/Mobil's and they add another $0.25 to the price, making it $2.75.  Your're probably wondering why you don't pay  $2.75.  That's a good question.  Strap in, kids.  Here's the answer:

Federal taxes on gasoline sales are about 18 cents a gallon.  State taxes vary considerably, which is why you see such variation between states in the price of gasoline.  In New York, for example, gas taxes amount to more than 60 cents a gallon.  Methodologies can vary because there are so many different taxes levied on fuels and gasoline is a big target.  One reason for the variation results from sales taxes which are dependent on the price of the gas.  Some states charge a percentage sales tax on the gas you buy, and the amount you pay is more, if the base price of a gallon is higher.  The Tax Foundation publishes a report on state taxes on gasoline.

All together, in New York, about 80 cents per gallon is added to the price of gasoline for taxes.

The next time you hear a politician or a friend tell you how greedy the oil company is or the gas station owner, ask them if they know how much in taxes they pay per gallon.  Chances are, they won't know.

So let's do some adding up:

$2.22  the cost per gallon of gasoline to the producer assuming a $100 per barrel$0.28  the profit margin to the gasoline producer  (eg., Exxon)$0.25  the profit margin to the gas station$0.80  the taxes on a gallon in New York State$3.55  the approximate price for a gallon of gas

Very little widespread "gaming" of the system goes on in the oil business.

When your local gas station raises the price of gas the day after a news stories breaks about a refinery disaster or some other supply disruption, people are naturally suspicious that the station owner is taking advantage of the situation.  But is he?

Let's say the typical busy gas station gets delivery of 40,000 gallons of gasoline every two weeks.  If a national supply disruption causes the price to the dealer to go from $2.50 to $2.65, it means the station owner must come up with an additional $6,000 to pay for the next delivery in less than two weeks.  Also, some oil companies have a minimum order, so it is also possible that the station owner won't be able to lower the order to something more accommodative to his cash flow.  If these conditions exist, then the gas station owner must raise gas prices as soon as possible to have enough cash available for delivery.  Rather than being gouged, the gas station is protecting his business and his customers.

This is not to say that gouging never happens.  But more often than not, gas stations are just trying to keep up with the price fluctuations to keep their businesses going.

Sometimes, when oil companies expect the price of crude oil to increase in the short or intermediate term, they ease back on production.  This gaming of the system has its shortcomings, because a cut in production could result in a loss of market share.  Also, if the prices don't rise as expected, there is a lost opportunity.  Even if the prices increase, the company must weigh the opportunity cost of leaving the oil in the ground for whatever the time period may be and compare it to the expected gain from the increase in price.  All of these things are legitimate ways to maximize profit and are neither unlawful or unethical.  Companies are doing what consumers do:  maximizing the benefit to themselves.  Just as consumers look for the best buy, companies seek out the most profitable exchange.  They are two sides of the same coin.

♦Don't believe everything you hear about gas prices.

♦Check out the sources linked to in this article for yourself.

♦Then, the next time your friends talk about gas prices, show them what you know and tell them about greatvocalmajority.com

EBOLA You know something? The whole scare over Ebola spreading doesn't bother me. I mean, Ebola is deadly, I know. But there has been only one case in the US. That's not enough to get me to wear a full enclosure hazmat suit. I am far more troubled by a President and an Administration that appear content to politicize everything. Even if the politicization puts American lives at risk.

The head of the CDCP, Tom Frieden said, "“Even if we tried to close the border, it wouldn’t work. People have a right to return. People transiting through could come in. And it would backfire, because by isolating these countries, it’ll make it harder to help them, it will spread more there and we’d be more likely to be exposed here.”

This is utter nonsense. It reflects a point of view based in politics not science. It doesn't even make any sense. If travel to and from Ebola afflicted countries were halted temporarily, how could that possible increase the likelihood that Americans would be exposed to Ebola? It doesn't make the least bit of sense. Border countries in the afflicted areas in Africa have closed their borders to travel to and from there. England and France have closed off travel to and from afflicted countries. And England and France are former imperial countries with stronger ties to those nations than the US.

Recently, President Obama encouraged tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors, who were given inadequate medical screenings, to be dispersed throughout the United States and he has refused to inform local and state officials of where and with whom he placed those children.

Not accidentally, just weeks after Obama dispersed these children throughout the country, a new disease, Enterovirus D68 is now spreading like a prairie fire across 43 states, primarily affecting children. Some children have died, while others have been permanently disabled with a polio-like paralysis. Experts in epidemiology have noted that viruses like Enterovirus D68 don't just show up in 43 states spontaneously. The only existing plausible explanation of the source of the virus are the children from Central America, where the virus is more common.

We already know they were given inadequate medical screenings by professionals who were there. In fact, the Federal agencies, in an effort to keep a lid on the reporting of the medical conditions found in those children, forced doctors and nurses treating them to sign non-disclosure agreements, which, if violated, would result in severe criminal and civil penalties. What the medical staff were expected to overlook, however, so shocked them, some came forward to media outlets anonymously, obviously at great risk to themselves

How do the unaccompanied Central American children relate to the Ebola virus response? Well Ladies and Gentlemen, it makes perfect sense.

When the children were at the border, if it were made public that many of them were carrying a virus not common in the US, which could easily lead to an outbreak and a serious health risk to American school children, public pressure to seal the southern border would have escalated overnight. Obama's dream of normalizing tens of millions of illegals would have evaporated just as quickly.

Then, Ebola happened. An ugly, deadly disease. Not a direct threat on the Southern border, but Obama was looking a step or two ahead. Closing off flights between the US and Ebola afflicted countries would be a first step, quickly followed by demands to......wait for it...........close off the Southern border.  As news of the Enterovirus D68 faded into the background, Ebola took center stage.  But in both cases, the Obama administration response is tailored toward the same end.

Politicizing medicine when there is a spreading epidemic of a deadly disease is an immoral act if not a criminal one. What could possibly be the motive? The answer lies in US immigration policy changes threatened by President Obama.  This President is expected to act to normalize millions of illegal aliens with the stroke of his pen.

Barack Obama is placing health and safety of school children in America at risk for partisan politics. That may sound incredible. Unbelievable. Incomprehensible. But just look at the facts. They are unforgiving.

As Enterovirus D68 spreads into more states and claims more victims, it is being overshadowed by the even greater horror of Ebola. With the death of America's first Ebola patient, the Obama administration announced what they call tougher screening at 5 major international airports where they say 94% of all travel from Ebola afflicted countries enter the US. They plan on asking passengers questions and taking their temperatures as they disembark from the plane. Do you find anything curious about that? I certainly do.

First of all, why would we choose to screen less than 100% of flights coming in from West Africa? Does that make any sense with a disease as deadly as Ebola? Second, if a passenger is found to have a fever or other signs of possible infection, what good does it do to screen them as they are deplaning in the US and then again, at only 5 airports? It would mean every single person on the plane is a potential victim, exposed to the virus. The medical professionals say it would require contact with body fluids. Oh! You mean like the kind of body fluids you could be exposed to if you used the restroom after the infected person used it? Or if you sat next to him, or brushed up against him as you moved about the jet in flight? It could also mean that Ebola victims can enter the country through an airport not screening passengers.  These measures are not serious.

But if Obama decided to stop flights until the Ebola threat subsided, his capitulation on that would demand he also close that southern border.  No matter where you turn on the issue of Ebola or Enterovirus D68, you inevitably come back to the Southern Border and immigration policy.

And what if Ebola happened to hit Central or South America, causing a mass migration to the US without sealing the border?

The US should do the common sense thing:  we ought to seal the border and stop all flights to and from Ebola afflicted nations and we should only be flying special charters of medical staff and logistics personnel to and from the hot zone.  President Obama is knowingly and with possible malice, hurting the American people with his policies.  It's hard to understand why he would do this, but the only answer seems to be partisan politics.

America deserves a better leader than this.

Sources:

Politico:  CDC Chief on Ebola

CNN:  Parents growing anxious about enterovirus

American Thinker:  Invasion of Enterovirus EV-D68

CDC:  Non-polio Enterovirus

Journal of Virology: Human Rhinoviruses and enteroviruses in influenza-like Illness in Latin America

Sharyl Attkisson:  Polio-like illness claims 5th life in US

This volume focuses on how al-Qaeda in Iraq(AQI) became ISIS.  Through a series of miscalculations on the part of AQI in 2006, they were defeated and their leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed.  The United States, however, failed to conclude a Status of Forces Agreement and their own miscalculations created by domestic political pressure and the fulfillment of campaign promises, led to the complete withdrawal of American military forces, creating a power vacuum into which ISIS moved.

The motto today should be "eternal vigilance." In this episode, Tony relates an experience he had in early 2002 and its possible connection to terror as an example of how simply paying attention can help law enforcement authorities prevent acts of terror.

The Great Recession of 2008 and 2009 represented the greatest threat to the economic system since the Great Depression of the early 1930s.  While the recession of 2008 and 2009 did not ultimately have the same disastrous impact on the lives of Americans, the pain of the economic downturn has lingered.  Most Americans still do not feel the recession is really over, even five years after it officially ended.

What were the causes of the 2008 meltdown?  Were there warning signs?  Why did it seem like all the experts were so surprised?

In this podcast, Tony talks about the ultimate cause of the Great Recession.  Not all experts were surprised.  In fact, there were many warning signs.  Policymakers were alerted, but the warnings were largely ignored or shouted down.  In the end, it was all about politics and market interventionist policies, which set the predicate for the worst economic disaster in nearly a century.

But the scary thing is, was that experience enough to motivate policymakers to change government action in the right direction?  There appears to be very little evidence of it and our political leaders are once again taking us down the same road, fraught with risk and potential disaster.

>>   Article II  Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution says:"The President, the Vice-President and all the Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

>>  The Framers on impeachment

>>  The legal and political dimensions

>>  The limitations of impeachment

James Madison's notes from the Constitutional Convention of 1787

House Speak John Boehner's Op Ed

Untill there is broader public support for the impeachment of President Obama, there is almost no possibility of it.  Without 67 votes in the Senate to convict, impeachment would be an exercise in symbolism.  Symbolism that would come at a steep political price and even further divide Americans.  The problems with American government today, transcend the actions of one President. 

 Obama’s Vision of Fundamental Transformation (Part II) Volume Notes:

Part II of a series of podcasts providing a detailed exposition of Obama’s vision for America.  In this podcast, the ebb and flow of Presidential power is discussed, using examples of past Presidents who used power beyond their Constitutional limits to effect changes. How President Obama is similar and how he differs in also discussed. Further, the concept of negative and positive rights are discussed and why they are critical to understanding President Obama’s point of view.

Sources:Lincoln suspends Habeus Corpus Rights during the Civil War

Woodrow Wilson passed the Sedition Act in 1917,  imposing harsh penalties on anyone found guilty of making false statements that interfered with the prosecution of the war; insulting or abusing the U.S. government, the flag, the Constitution or the military; agitating against the production of necessary war materials; or advocating, teaching or defending any of these acts. Those who were found guilty of such actions, the act stated, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both. This was the same penalty that had been imposed for acts of espionage in the earlier legislation.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/us-congress-passes-sedition-act

Woodrow Wilson also formed The American Protective League during World War 1.  The APL sought out what it defined as “disloyal Americans.”  Disloyalty could amount to something as innocuous as failing to purchase the expected amount of Liberty Bonds to fund the war effort.  It was the first attempt at a surveillance state.http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/11g.htm

The Constitution of the Soviet Union