Miscellany: 10/24/14

Quote of the Day
I believe in intuition and inspiration. 
Imagination is more important than knowledge. 
For knowledge is limited, 
whereas imagination embraces the entire world, 
stimulating progress, 
giving birth to evolution. 
It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research.
Albert Einstein

Image of the Day

Via Sen. Coburn (R-OK)

Chart of the Day: Federal Spending Per Capita vs Immigrant Population Percentage

Courtesy of Cato Institute

What Alex Nowrasteh is showing here is that federal spending per capita was escalating during a time when overly restrictive immigration policy was actually shrinking the percentage of immigrants in the population. Even when modest policy reforms in the post-1970 era boosted the immigrant population, spending continues to outstrip immigration. And, just to address a question lazy-ass anti-immigrants typically ask about relevant government statistics (it's too hard for them to check out the FAQ section for the US Census):

Who are foreign-born immigrants?
The U.S. Census Bureau uses the term foreign born to refer to anyone who is not a U.S. citizen at birth. This includes naturalized U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents (immigrants), temporary migrants (such as foreign students), humanitarian migrants (such as refugees and asylees), and persons illegally present in the United States. Foreign-born immigrants are foreign-born people whose usual place of residence is in the United States.

Newest Nominee For JOTY: Vincent Shaheen (D-SC)'s "Freudian Slip" Attack on Gov. Haley

HT Libertarian Republican



Facebook Corner

(Cato Institute). See Chart of the Day
Dudes, look at what happened after LBJ's Great Society got the welfare state going in earnest -- mid 1960's -- outlays per capita are up by 3 to 4 times since. Once you use your brain and bring information to the table, your graph proves the exact opposite the point you maintain. You can't have open immigration and a welfare state hand in hand.
Friedman whored his liberty beliefs. No reputable free market economist today believes in economically damaging restrictive immigration policies. Stop blaming immigrants for the fascist policies of FDR and LBJ.

(Judge Andrew Napolitano). Is the president irrelevant? No. He will do everything he can to prove his relevance with his telephone and pen.
If the GOP takes the Senate, however, expect to hear more talks of impeachment.
For more: http://goo.gl/SPllfD
In order to block any conviction, Obama needs just 34 Democratic votes. In a worst case scenario, Obama will have at least 45 Democrats in the Senate. Obama could lose more than 10 Democrats and still stay in the White House. Considering that President Zipper didn't lose a single Democrat in an open and shut case of obstruction of justice and perjury, it's unlikely, short of a smoking gun, that even 1 Democrat would vote to convict the first President of color; any Dem who did so would likely be primaried on reelection, and the Dems would get blowback from their most predictable voting constituency--something they are not going to do less than 2 years before a change election. Not to mention the GOP would likely get some blowback from moderates and independents like they did after Clinton's impeachment. Or change the 2016 election into a reelection of President Biden, with all the advantages of incumbency.

Will there be talk of impeachment if the GOP captures the Senate? Of course. Some of that will reflect the size of the majority; if it's a narrow 1 or 2 seat majority, it's not worth it. I suspect that the GOP wants to set the stage for 2016 for more significant reform with a GOP President. I expect them to work on passing some popular reforms difficult for Obama to veto, e.g., audit the Fed, eliminate the ObamaCare mandates, lower business income tax rates, fix social security disability, etc. It's also likely Obama will try to salvage his lame-duck status by signaling some points of agreement, e.g., charter schools and COLA reform.

DiLorenzo and the Real Abe Lincoln



The Self-Destruction of a "Progressive" Cardinal

My issue with Voris in this commentary is that he overlooks Cardinal Kasper's close ties with Pope Francis. Kasper's denial of his condescending comments about socially-conservative African bishops is not unlike Clinton's denial of the Lewinsky affair until Lewinsky came forward with the infamous soiled blue dress, with Clinton's DNA on it. In this case, the reporter had an audio tape of Kasper's remarks. Kasper is no doubt studying the pseudo-apologies of "progressive" Democrats, i.e., "If anyone is offended by my saying/doing that, I'm sorry that they feel that way." This is more of a backhanded criticism over the victim's "oversensitivity" or overreaction to provocative behavior, the second bite of the apple. Cardinal Kasper should have said, "I did say those things about African bishops; those comments are indefensible, I was unconditionally wrong and am sincerely sorry for saying those things and beg the forgiveness of my African brothers in Christ."



Freedom of Market Speech



Proposals







Not trying to be hypercritical, but did he have to say "she's hot" twice in his public top 10 reasons why he loves his girlfriend? Couldn't he say something else like, "She's beautiful, inside-out?"


Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Bob Gorrell via Townhall

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Vocalists

Linda Ronstadt, "Ooh, Baby, Baby"