Memo to USA: Detroit Is Only 1/2 as Broke as You Are

On July 18, the city of Detroit filed for bankruptcy.  In simple terms, the City acknowledged that it had incurred more debt than it could repay.  For years, rather than tax its residents enough to pay the bills, it had borrowed money to pay the bills.  And, with the filing, the City confesses that it has borrowed so much money that it is not able repay its debt, not even with the power to force its residents to send money to the city treasurer (aka, the power of taxation).  The residents, it turns out, can move to other towns and cities – and they’ve done so in droves.

With that in mind, I conducted a highly complex financial analysis (see below) which reveals cold reality:

And those rich fat-cats in Detroit, who are only half as in hock as the rest of us, are asking Uncle Sam to bail them out.  Maybe Detroit could just print its own money and bail itself out with paper.  Yeah, that should fix it.

NOTE:  Detroit’s figures include an estimate of the City’s unfunded pension liabilities.  Figures for USA do not.  Estimate = $75,000,000,000,000 or additional $238,930 per person for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, ObamaCare and similar entitlements.

NOTE 2:  Detroiters are fooling themselves.  They’re each on the hook for $54,157.37 too.

Whence Detroit and Bankruptcy? In The Answer Lies the Solution.

Detroit’s bondholders and other creditors face enormous write-downs on debts owed by the City – huge financial losses that will devastate pension beneficiaries and others who own and depend on those claims against Detroit’s empty treasury.  However, there is a solution.  It’s big, it would likely produce enough wealth to repay the creditors 100 cents on the dollar.  It will also be extraordinarily controversial, because it’s private, it requires no taxes or federal bail-out money and hinges on wealth creation rather than wealth confiscation and redistribution.  The process that destroyed Detroit can be reverse engineered to take the city back from the political power-players who wrecked it.  In the right hands, Detroit is a gold-mine!

Detroit was once a great city because it was occupied by free men and women who built a community as a means to sustain and accommodate their lives, personal and commercial.  Incidentally, and much later they formed a governing body, and unfortunately over time ‘City Hall’ morphed into an entity with its own “life” with demands separate, independent and in competition with those of its constituents.

Eventually, it began to use the power to tax to accumulate the funds needed to ‘feed the hungry’ and to buy (i.e. confiscate from private hands) billions and billions of dollars worth of artwork, transit systems, museums, sports and entertainment venues, and on and on – assets that could be exceedingly valuable in private hands, yet are moribund in the custody of a non-economic actor.  Consequently, they require additional, ever-increasing inflows of money for their maintenance and operation – not to mention funds for food, staff, offices and limousines for the mayor and thousands of functionaries.  All of that unproductive government activity is funded with tax dollars until the voters catch on, and then the golden goose leaves town.  Then begins the borrowing, borrowing and ever more borrowing (sounds familiar?). . . until there’s a sucking sound that takes the form of a Chapter 9 bankruptcy.

In time, America’s CURE will share its plan to reconstitute Detroit.  Rather than subsidizing it, all Americans will be offered a chance to own a part of the resurgence of that City and taste again the thrill of victory.  Then the fun begins, as we’ll apply the same plan to our nation’s $17 Trillion debt.

What’s Power Worth to YOU?

In a press conference today (video link here) Anthony Weiner and his wife, Huma Abedin, share their thoughts about his, uh, inappropriate online communication with strangers.

No remorse.  Just pseudo apologies and convoluted explanations.  Note in particular the assertion that the important, newsworthy fact is that Huma knew about (and condoned?) his post-resignation, post-I’m-a-changed-man misbehavior when they decided he would announce his candidacy for mayor of NYC.  This amid the orchestrated ‘we’re gonna let it all hangout, and I forgive him’ moment of truth.  Lights, camera, action – and make your sincerity look real, OK?!

The point is?  Having political muscle, holding a political post, and running with the right crowd, the people who arrogate unto themselves the power to dictate how others live their lives, are more important to the political class than their own emotional well-being.

Watch Huma’s display of glibness closely.  She, according to the pundits, has been humiliated (really – what did she do?  Put up with it, that’s what!).  And she is praised by her cronies for her valiant performance, praised for hiding her disgust and sadness with a stern countenance (not to mention few knowing glances and smiles around the room).  Trouble is, she is incapable of either disgust or sadness.  She has nothing but raw ambition running through her veins.  She learned at the feet of the master – Hillary “vast right-wing conspiracy” Clinton.  The Weiners knew these exchanges would be revealed, they knew that his worst, most embarrassing (to a normal person, that is) foibles would be on public display and expose their personal lives to ridicule.  Yet, they decided to press ahead, to seek the mayorship of NYC, because, to their ilk, power is worth losing one’s self, power is worth everything.  See, again, Hillary “listening tour” Clinton and Bill “meaning of the word IS is” Clinton.

That’s the lesson from this – and every – political scandal.  This class of people is not more scandal-prone, more sexually active or promiscuous, more given to theft, dishonesty or other unethical acts than the rest of us.  But they are self-inoculated from the effects of shame and pride (that’s not to say vanity).  They must have something in their blood that you and I don’t, because no self-respecting person would ever covet power over another man or woman.  While you’re busy living a normal life, this class of people are taking an ever-increasing level of control over your day-to-day life.  That should frighten any and every sane person.

Are you sane?

No Winners. Only Victors and Victims

Less than a year ago, on July 19, 2013, President Obama made a 17-minute speech to share his thoughts about Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. It  was really two speeches? One group claims to have heard inspirational rhetoric of historic importance, a call for peace, justice and racial reconciliation. Other listeners speak of the president’s insinuation that criminal behavior by ‘young black boys’ is justified by injustices of the distant past and consequential, uncontrollable resentment.

A single, solitary speech. Two diametrically opposite interpretations.

One group is enthralled by high-minded rhetoric, moved to irrational, emotional celebrations, prepared to take to the streets in the name of racial justice, silencing opposition with claims of moral superiority, and waving the bloody shirt of Trayvon Martin as their flag and a photo of their fellow citizen, George Zimmerman, as the symbol of evil, the target of their wrath.

The other group is disgusted by the vile, ugly picture of ALL Americans implicit in the speech. For the speech to reflect America, it’s necessary to believe that whites perpetrate, condone or intentionally ignore hard-core acts of race-based oppression against black victims who are, in this speech, relegated to a state of sub-human savagery, incapable of taking responsibility for their actions and accountable to no rules or standards, black victims rendered helpless without a federal police force to protect them from racial profiling.

And so now, if we listen to the President, we have two sides in America. Both to some degree indignant, emotional, aggrieved . . . pushed to the edge.

Obama’s message? It’s war. He presents us with a choice between two lies. He concludes that justice chooses sides, it is not impartial or impersonal. He asks, “which will it be, Justice for Trayvon or Justice for George?” and tells you to choose carefully your hero or prepare to be trampled.

I’m not encouraged about the prospects of reconciliation. In a battle with justice and truth on the sidelines, unhinged emotion pitted against indignant logic, there are no winners, only victors and victims.

There is a better way – let’s find it together. Reject both lies. Soon, or else . . .

Obama Statement on Trayvon Martin – Paraphrased

Earlier today, Barack Obama made a statement in the White House press briefing room.  (See transcript here.)

I restate and shorten his remarks below:

Because of our tawdry, shameful national history – you know, slavery, state-sanctioned discrimination and stuff like that – black youth perpetrate a disproportionate number of crimes.  That’s bad, sure, but I deeply and profoundly regret the rational response to the resulting crime spree.  I deplore the ugly act which was previously known as deductive reasoning and which we race-baiters now call ‘racial profiling.’  Because we let profiling go unpunished – like in the George Zimmerman case – African Americans often get funny looks on elevators and other mean stuff like that.

So, in light of our country’s ugly past (I don’t like to think about the hundreds of thousands who died in The Civil War, The Emancipation Proclamation, the 14th Amendment, or multiple ‘civil rights’ laws) black youth ought not be expected to be rational when evaluating such uncomfortable moments, notwithstanding that they are brought on by their culture’s and communities’ disregard for social norms.  Indeed, given the racial context of everything, urban poverty caused by rich white guys’ greed, and the way those facts color their thinking, we can’t expect young African Americans to comprehend, much less obey, criminal laws as currently codified in the 50 states of the union.  Committing crime is just their way of asking for help, and we need to listen to them better.

For example, stand your ground laws and the concept of self defense have to be viewed in light of racial tensions.  Black youth are correctly resentful, maybe even trigger-happy – especially when some cracker gives them an uncomfortable look.  That causes them to panic and attack, and when they attack a guy with a gun, it can be ugly.  In short, Trayvon Martin should’ve been packing heat, then maybe he would have gotten off the first shot, and that white piece of shit would be dead, and I could hold a Rose Garden ceremony after I issued a presidential pardon for my imaginary son – sorry Sasha and Malia.

In conclusion, to make things right, to make things even once and for all, I recommend we take a look at changing the criminal codes in the 50 states so that more white people go to jail.

Thanks you guys. [That part is a direct quote.]

And the lefties are praising this as brilliant, nuanced and historic.

They’re right about the last word.  It should frighten you if you’re paying attention.

Self Defense; What does that mean?

You’re threatened?  Do you:

A.  Run for your life?

B.  Defend yourself?

Before you answer, see this 2-minute video of our Attorney General.  His concluding paragraph:

“There has always been a legal defense for using deadly force if — and the “if” is important — if no safe retreat is available. But we must examine laws that take this further by eliminating the commonsense and age-old requirement that people who feel threatened have a duty to retreat outside their homes if they can do so safely. By allowing and perhaps encouraging violent situations to escalate in public, such laws undermine public safety. The list of resulting tragedies is long, and unfortunately has victimized too many who are innocent. It is our collective obligation. We must stand our ground.”

In other parts of the speech, he lamented that he had been the subject of racial profiling on his way to a movie in Georgetown, because he was running while black . . . and that he was sad to have to coach his son to behave a certain way around police officers or in white neighborhoods, else he also might be ‘profiled’ (as if that’s the same as being ‘defiled’).  One wonders, is he announcing that he also gave this advice to his son?

Son, if someone accosts you, run, like a little chicken, run!  Or at least be sure to look diligently for an escape route, because if there is one that you fail to see or elect not to take, you will thereby forfeit your right to defend your life and your honor, and anything you might do to that end is a violent crime.  Then, I will have a duty as the Attorney General of the USA to hunt you down.

Oh, need movie money?

In other words, the unwritten part of the rule Mr. Holder would advocate says “If you choose to accost Eric Holder or his son, make sure you leave him an escape route or he will have that state’s permission to fight back, in which case the state will be more likely to catch and punish you for your crime.  Otherwise, enjoy the hunt!”

Each of us is possessed of the inalienable and unconditional right to life and liberty.  Any way you cut it, THAT is what Eric Holder and his boss want to take from you.  So, which is it, A or B?  Will you bow and salute, will you run?  Or will you stand your ground against the government’s unrelenting attempts to takeover your life?

NOTE:  He was talking at the NAACP national convention.  Who is meant to be the antecedent of “We” in that last sentence?  Hmmm.

Zimmerman and “Stay in the Truck!!”

Monday, in the Wall Street Journal, the editors wrote “Mr. Zimmerman made many mistakes that February evening, not least failing to heed police advice not to pursue Martin.”

My letter to the editor follows.

First, Mr. Z didn’t pursue Mr. Martin; instead, like a good neighbor he kept an eye on a suspicious character so he could report his location to the police when they arrived in response to his call for help – calling 9-1-1 isn’t the standard pre-crime act of a man intent on murder or manslaughter, is it?

More importantly, can the editors explain how they and other Martin apologists can simultaneously hold it in their head that (1) Zimmerman was culpable because he ‘profiled’ and followed Martin, so (2) Martin was justified in feeling threatened and afraid of a creepy [white] hispanic cracker, and (3) Martin was entitled to respond with violence to the aggressive(?) act of following, so (4) Zimmerman should have just let Martin beat him until, well, hmmm, beat him until he stopped beating him, I guess, and (5) only Zimmerman called the police while both men had phones in their possession.

Martin was a nearly full-grown young man, independent, savvy and confident enough to walk 1.25 miles each way to/from the 7-11 for a snack.  However, we’re meant to conclude that his inner child reasserted itself some 50-100 yards from home, he became frightened by Zimmerman’s gaze or gait, and that his reasonable response to the resultant, overpowering childish fear was to display the violent temper of an aggrieved, downtrodden black man.  And, lest you forget, he was not so frightened that he was incapable of describing the situation to Rachel Jentael, his friend in Miami, on a number of phone calls each lasting several minutes.

That is the only rationale for the “Zimmerman should have stayed in his truck instead of following Martin and all would be well” story-line that the WSJ perpetuates.  It disgusts me and, I suspect, any sane person who isn’t a racist.  It is not only disingenuous and incoherent, it characterizes Martin as an ignorant savage.  It suggests to young black men that, if in the future they experience discomfort caused by a [white] [hispanic] man’s behavior, it’s acceptable to attack the offender, so long as they check first for a gun, that is.

The message is:  If you survive an encounter with a profiler/stalker, trust that the US Department of Justice will investigate the taunting cracker and haul him in on charges of violating your civil rights.  But, please stop hitting him before he gets really, really bloody, because that could complicate matters.

Trayvon Martin does not have to have been a thug or a young man with a troubled past for George Zimmerman’s actions to be reasonable and legal.  George Zimmerman didn’t act irresponsibly, he responded to being threatened by Trayvon Martin, and that’s true even if Trayvon were an angelic choir boy who experienced a first and momentary lapse in judgment.

Tragedy?  Yes.  Crime?  No.  Sign of the need for a national ‘debate’ about race?  Again, NO, for the love of peace, NO NO NO.

A New Black Role Model – Trayvon Martin [Luther King]

In this Presidential statement issued on July 14, 2013, The White House tells us that America should “ask ourselves . . . how we can prevent future tragedies” in order “to honor Trayvon Martin.”

First, let’s review a bit of recent history.

• Despite a few generations of children of all colors having learned that blacks are not inferior to whites;
• Notwithstanding a majority of white people having voted twice for a black man to be President of the United States;
• While every facet of civil society has been cleansed of race-based discrimination – not to suggest that anyone forfeits the prerogative to evaluate behavior and encourage those acts he likes and avoid those that offend him;
• Even though every hint of state-sanctioned racial discrimination has been purged from the law;

There is yet an unanswered lie being perpetrated on us by the media and political class, both left and right, Democrat and Republican. The myth being told over and over is that young black men are in danger of being killed by white people brandishing guns they would/ought not possess but for the NRA’s money’s control over Congress combined with horrendous “stand your ground” laws that encourage, even give license to otherwise rational people to roam their neighborhood shooting innocent black children at the slightest provocation and with impunity.

That lie is encouraging a generation of black men [and their white enablers] to believe that black youth are in need of special treatment, that they are justified in their bitterness and anger against the American system, and that their lot in life is to rebel against a system that has them helplessly trapped in the ghetto. That lie allows them to take no responsibility for their lives. That lie is based upon the fiction that Trayvon Martin (and now, Freddie Gray) as victim, is a role model which, in turn, suggests that successful blacks like Michael Jordan, Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Allen West, Cory Booker, Barack Obama, Ursula Burns (CEO of Xerox) Rosalind Brewer (CEO of Sams Club) and Shelia Johnson are flukes of nature.

More importantly and to look beyond that lie, one asks: why can youthful blacks look only to wealthy black adults as their models? What if Trayvon had been allowed or encouraged to admire, say, Joe the Plumber, Andrew Carnegie, Neil Armstrong or Steve Jobs? What if visions of those men dwelled in his mind to guide his actions; then, maybe, George Zimmerman would not have mistaken Trayvon Martin for a burglar or a gangster. Maybe Trayvon would have spent his youth on the right side of the library doors, and we would know about a young, up and coming black man challenging the vice-grip that the entitlement culture of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson has over his brothers and sisters in the ghettos of America.

Or, maybe that wasn’t Mr. King’s dream. Maybe a life of strife and violence is the best we can hope for from people who are taught that merely being called an N-name is to be trapped in the cultural sewer that Name invokes. Let Al Sharpton and Barack Obama try to convince black boys and girls to honor and pursue the nigger culture; for me, I’ll try to convince them to revere freedom and the people who protect theirs, including, yes, even George Zimmerman, the jury that acquitted him and members of the NRA.

Zimmerman Trial Aftermath

It is entirely inappropriate for the prosecution team to be on TV lamenting their ‘loss’ in the Zimmerman case. The state does not have a bet on the winner or the loser in a criminal offense. The state is on the side of justice, the state represents the law, not the victim or the defendant in a criminal case.

Perpetuating the concept that the state is ‘on the side of the victim’ is to undermine the rule of law, to undermine the concept of equal justice, to undermine the peaceful coexistence of free men in civil society. The post-game analysis carried on by the state’s attorney on TV is highly offensive, is an abuse of power, is an impeachable offense. They are proving a complete lack of understanding of the concept of justice and are therefore unqualified to hold public office. They are essentially encouraging social unrest.

Americans’ Exceptionalism

The problem in Egypt?  They’re protesting and clamoring for democracy – exactly like the last time, when the mobs took to the street in Cairo to dethrone Mubarak.  And, well, that’s good . . . as far as it goes, and we see how far it goes; it goes as far as the next time a few thousand people have something to bitch about.

A nation’s fate, its greatness can not be based in democratic rule and universal suffrage.  Success of a nation can not – despite what you’re told by politicians – hinge on how many good things the government can do for a given demographic group or voting block.  America’s greatness is a result of accomplishments made possible by the primacy of individual rights and the liberty of men being governed, not ruled, by a constant, knowable set of laws.  America is great because, and only because, of the accomplishments of men who are NOT subject to the transitory whims of vile men who take pleasure in power.  Democracy can not promise and will not necessarily deliver liberty, and without liberty, no man will reach his potential.

The brilliance of our Constitution is its attempt to limit what the government can do – EVEN with the vote or support of a majority.  Our failure in the Middle East, the tragedy of the last 10-15 years of waging war in pursuit of peace and stability in that region, is that we have not championed freedom.  We have instead rallied behind seemingly democratic ‘reforms’ which have, as always, produced chaos and violence.  Our foreign policy has hinged on attempts to handicap outcomes and choose sides with the winner.  We ought not be for any ‘side’ – we must be for individual rights and liberty, else we are not out the side of justice.  Without justice, there are no winners, only victors and spoils of war.

That we are failing to recall or recognize what makes America exceptional is making us glaringly unexceptional – both in foreign and domestic affairs.  That we place so much blind faith in the state rather than the individual is making us frighteningly ineffective abroad and increasingly unproductive and despondent at home.

One does not have to earn the liberty our founders constituted a government to safeguard, but if we let that same government deprive us of it, we do not deserve it.  Will you be exceptional or just fade away?  Will you be an American or a dutiful citizen?  Are you going to make your life worthy of your birthright of freedom?