Last Monday on a BBC radio broadcast Hina Jilani, a lawyer of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and former UN Special Representative on Human Rights criticized the United States for not allowing proper legal protection for suspected terrorists. She can criticize anyone she wishes, but it appears that she might have more pressing problems in her homeland.

The government of Pakistan is now bowing to Taliban militants (led by tribal militia leader Baitullah Mehsud, the prime suspect in the plot to kill former prime minister Benazir Bhutto), allowing him to impose Islamic law in Pakistan’s Northwest territory. The Pakistan government is made up of a bunch of stupid appeasers, who will eventually reap what they sew. Mehsud’s thugs extort protection money from rural villages and enforce Sharia law, which includes the destruction of schools and prohibits music and video.

Maybe Ms. Jilani should shut her mouth, stop hob-knobbing in New York, take a flight to Islamabad, jump in a land rover, ride over up to the city of Wana, and check-in to the hotel Waziristan. While she’s there she should get in Mehsud’s face and demand that his Taliban bullies stop burning schools for girls. One thing is for sure; if the Taliban has its way, there won’t be any young girls from Waziristan who grow up to be lawyers for the Pakistani Supreme Court.

The United Nations is full of pompous people from hellish countries throughout the world who enjoy the freedom, security, and prosperity of New York City. They come to a place that is so free that they can literally convulse in their criticism of the United States of America. Many of them would risk getting a bullet in the head if they were to go back to their homeland and criticize their own leaders in the same way they revile against America. The UN is so hypocritical that Mark Steyn, in his book America Alone says: “In recent years I can find only one example of a senior UN figure having the guts to call a member state a “totalitarian regime.” It was the former secretary-general Boutros Boutros-Ghali in 2004, and he was talking about America.”

Another ditty from a BBC reporter came while I was listening on Tuesday evening. A BBC reporter was talking to Indonesians on the street about the visit of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to that country. One of the respondents, an Indonesian student, indicated that many Indonesians “hate the United States.” After that comment the reporter asked, “What can Hillary Clinton do on this trip to give Indonesia the respect it deserves from America?”

WHAT???? What kind of a question is this? If Indonesian residents want to hate the United States, so be it, but why do we have to cower to them and ask them what we’ve done to deserve their wrath?  When have we disrespected Indonesia?   Why do we have to earn the respect of Indonesia? Doesn’t “hate” sound a bit like disrespect?   Could it be that the Indonesians might need to respect the United States more?

Let me conclude with three points. First, I put absolutely no stock in the criticism of foreign “experts” (Pakistani lawyers, UN Secretary-Generals or whomever) who don’t have the guts to take care of their own human rights problems. Second, I’m upset with the British, who have grossly understated the importance of their gift to the world of culture, common law, and civilized reason. At least the British are willing to provide combat troops to assist the United States in world conflicts. However, when the French, Dutch, Germans, and other continental European leaders have meetings, you can actually see a shiver running around the chairs looking for a spine to crawl up.

Third, it bothers me when I hear Americans engaging in self-deprecation of the United States. We’re not perfect, but the United States has borne the burdens of world leadership since1941. Europeans and people from other parts of the world have greatly benefited because the United States has demonstrated both the will and the means to stop tyranny and despotism, while they have largely remained silent and were spared the costs (in treasure and lives) of doing the dirty work.

For the critics of the United States, let me propose a question. If not the United States, which country do you prefer should lead the world? When your homeland is threatened with invasion, genocide, or despotism, what country are you going to call to assist you? How about Pakistan? How about Iran? How about China? Do you want to try Somalia, the Sudan, or the French on for size? I didn’t think so.

No doubt you’re sick of hearing about the recession; so am I. But before telling you how we can end the recession as soon as possible, let me make an observation about our President. I distinctly remember socialist presidential candidate Barack Obama criticizing socialist President George Bush for his use of “fear tactics” during his 8 years in office. Last week Obama stumped around the country claiming that if we didn’t get his stimulus bill passed in a week the United States of America would be facing an economic “Catastrophe”. I guess it’s OK for Obama to use fear tactics to scare the hell out of the American public about their jobs, their mortgages, and their livelihoods, but for God’s sake, it’s immoral for George Bush to use fear tactics to mention the possibility that some Islamic terrorist could be standing in the middle of New York City with a suitcase nuke.

Back to the recession; it isn’t as bad as the 82 recession, but it is a recession, to be sure. On Monday the President will sign a $787 billion pork barrel spending bill that masquerades as an “economic stimulus” bill. Most of the money won’t directly affect the economy or job creation for nearly two years. The President has said that the stimulus package will create “millions of good paying jobs”. Don’t be fooled. Government doesn’t create jobs; it diverts money (and jobs) from the private sector to pay government employees.

Recessions are common and this one would have come to an end by the fourth quarter of 2009, even without this $787 billion stimulus package. When the recovery comes, Obama and the Democrats will take credit for it, but the recovery will be in spite of their spending, not because of it. Because the government will have to borrow or print all of the money, within two years we will have substantial inflation, perhaps double digit. The only way to cure the 2011 inflation will be to raise interest rates, causing the economy to slip into another recession.

Not only is this $787 billion “stimulus” package unnecessary, but the endless debate and poorly thought out results of weekend “crisis” meetings has delayed the recovery. Markets can adjust to bad news, but they are frozen when they have to deal with uncertainty. The politicization of a rather normal recession and the media “spin” that has whipped up a 7.2% employment rate, as if we were selling apples on the streets in 1930’s, has been a great disservice to the economy.

I know people who have been looking at homes to purchase, but they remain on the sidelines, unwilling to sign a purchase agreement. They have a good down payment, real good jobs, and can easily get a mortgage. Why won’t they buy? They’re waiting for the government to quit meddling in the economy and establish the “rules” of the game. One week there’s talk of a 4.5% interest rate on new home loans. The next week there’s talk of a 15% tax credit for new homebuyers. So, while sellers have homes they want to sell and buyers want to buy those homes, no one is going to make a move until the government is done deciding what it will do. After all, who wants to buy a house in February when the government is going to enact a tax credit in March?

Businesses and consumers are also sitting on the sidelines waiting for the government to finish the rule-making. Why buy an automobile now, when they’re talking about a tax credit later? Why should a business invest in machinery and equipment when its owners don’t even know what the government is going to do with depreciation rates and capital gains taxes?

In summary, we know only two things for sure.

2. The sooner our saviors in Washington get done with whatever they’re going to do, the sooner the uncertainty will go away, the sooner markets will adjust, and the sooner the economy will recover. As long as the rule makers fiddle, our economy will burn.

When I heard that California’s Nadya Suleman, mother of six children, decided to plant six more embryos, which produced in her womb 8 more babies (for a total of 14 children), I thought someone must have gotten the facts wrong. I was even more upset when I found out that it took 45 doctors and staff members to deliver her “litter”. Just getting these kids home from the hospital is estimated to run up a health care bill exceeding $3 million.

Suleman deserves the mass criticism that has come her way. Of course, she claims that if she wasn’t a single mom, no one would be saying anything about her 14 children. Honey, respectfully, I don’t give a damn where you got the sperm. This has nothing to do with the fact that there is no man in the house, so stop hiding your irresponsibility by playing the “single mom” card.

In Suleman’s recent interview on NBC she stated the following:

· “I know I’ll be able to afford them when I’m done with my schooling.”
· “All I wanted was children. I wanted to be a mom. That’s all I ever wanted in my life. I love my Children. I’m loving them unconditionally, accepting them unconditionally. Everything I do, I’ll stop my life for them and be present with them. And hold them. And be with them. And how many parents do that? I’m sure there are many that do, but many don’t. And that’s unfortunate. That is selfish.”

AFFORDABILITY

“I know I’ll be able to afford them when I’m done with my schooling.” Suleman is working on a master’s degree in counseling. Assuming that she finishes her schooling, she can expect to make about $45,000 a year with that degree. In her demented mind, that salary will enable her to “afford” 14 children.

According to the latest research, the annual cost (in 2006 dollars) of raising a child from birth through the 18th year is $5,940 for housing, $2,323 for food, $2,543 for transportation, $652 for clothing, $1,010 for health care, $1,732 for daycare, and $1,897 for miscellaneous expenses for an annual per-child total of $16,097. So, let’s see….. Fourteen children @ $16,097 per child comes to a total child raising cost of $225,358 per year. Gosh, Nadya, with your $45,000 salary there’s a $180,358 annual shortfall, even if you pay no income taxes and social security taxes. Sure, Nadia, you’ll be able to “afford” these kids just fine! Oh, one small thing; can we get your check for the $3 million hospital bill?

There’s another small ditty that we might need to explore. According to experts, it is virtually impossible to have eight babies that are healthy and robust. Most, if not all of these octuplets, will likely have major health problems including seizures, heart problems, lung problems, and significant learning disabilities. The costs of the special-needs requirements of these kids alone will be enough to choke a horse. Unless the biological father of Suleman’s children is Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, the taxpayers of California are going to be digging into their pockets for the entire natural lifetime of these children. No problem; California’s state government is flush with cash!

ALL I WANTED WAS CHILDREN. I LOVE MY CHILDREN

Well, Nadya. If your goal in life was to be a mom, you achieved it in a big way. Why weren’t you happy with six children? Nadya, you might be a biological mother to 14 children, but you don’t love them; unconditionally or otherwise. You’re sick. You didn’t need a fertility clinic last year; you needed a psychologist. As much as you give lip service to loving these children, you will inevitably neglect them. You’re outnumbered 14 to 1. You criticize parents who don’t spend enough time with their children and call them “selfish.” Dear Nadya, you invented the word “selfish” when it comes to bringing children into this world. Most Mississippi puppy mill owners have more sense than you have.

“OK, OK”, you must be saying. “Stop beating up on a woman who is obviously mentally ill.” All right. OK. I get it. It’s just that Suleman is now the ultimate poster child for all parents (single, married, gay or straight) that give birth to more children than they can financially and emotionally support.

Maybe instead of carbon credits we should have a system of “kiddie credits.” It would work like this: Every female born in the US would receive three “kiddie credits”. This would allow her to bear three children, but no more. If a woman gave birth to three children and wanted a fourth child, she would be allowed to do so, but only if she purchased a “kiddie credit” from a woman who didn’t use her allowable credits. Let’s say Sally wants five children, but Marcy wants only one child. Sally could buy two of Marcy’s “kiddie credits”, allowing her permission to bear five children. Marcy could have one child. Thus, between the two mothers, there are six children; an average of 3 children per mother. This keeps the population at a sustainable birth rate (about 2.2 children per mother), while allowing families who can afford the extra credits the ability to have more children.

Of course, “kiddie credits” would trade at a market price; perhaps as high as $10,000 to $15,000. This would give some women reason not to have too many children, favoring the additional income from the sale of their “kiddie” credits instead. On the other hand, women with the propensity and income to desire more than three children would be able to realize their dream.

Unlike carbon credits, kiddie credits would at least be tackling a real problem. There would be a few details to work out with the kiddie credit program. For example, what if a woman had twins with her third pregnancy? Of course, she would be allowed to keep them, giving her four children without penalty. What would you do if a woman gave birth to a child for whom she had no kiddie credit? Let’s see. Maybe we could put the biological father in jail for two years and garnish his wages for life to support the fourth kid. Or maybe we could just let Obama figure out the details during a long weekend meeting at Camp David with a health and human services secretary who has paid his/her taxes. This Obama guy is pure genius. Any guy who can figure out how to run the entire US economy in three weeks isn’t going to be thwarted by kiddie credits.

Running right up to the election and even after the inauguration of our new President, many words have been used by politicians and the media to describe the US economy. Some of these words are, “depression, calamity, collapse, meltdown, destruction, end of capitalism”, and so on. Emotions have replaced facts in economic discourse. Politicians and the media have turned a garden variety recession into a full-fledged “panic”.

Because they can’t wait to expand the influence and power of central government by passage of their $819 billion “stimulus package”, Obama and the Democrats have attempted to make the US economy look as bad as possible. As he tried this week to sell his stimulus package to Republicans, none of them bought his call for “bold and swift” action by government to create economic recovery. Both Republicans and Democrats should know that printing money won’t bring about long-run job creation. Recessions have to work themselves out. What goes down always goes back up and this economy is no different.

To get a grip on how bad or good things really are, let’s look at some facts. Does anyone remember the “depression, calamity, collapse, meltdown, and destruction” of the economy in the early 1980’s? In December of 1982 the US unemployment rate was 10.8% vs. 7.2% today. Our unemployment rate may rise to 10%, but we’re not there yet. In 1980 the inflation rate was 13.58 percent, whereas it was 3.85% last year. The double-digit inflation rates of the late 1970’s were “cured” by a tight monetary policy at the Federal Reserve. The cure for this inflation was the double digit unemployment rates of the early 80’s. The 1982 recession was the worst recession since the 1930’s. We lived through two tough years and many good people lost their jobs, but no one talked about calamity. We took the pain of unemployment and recession. By the mid 80’s both the inflation and unemployment rates were below 4 percent. We could take pain back then. Now we’re too soft; we need to nurse at the breast of big government at the slightest hint of discomfort.

The media has also created panic by making things seem worse than they really are. Here’s an example. A recent report from CNN Money.com goes like this:

“The number of Americans filing new unemployment insurance claims jumped last week to a 26-year high, surpassing the number of filings economists had predicted. The Labor Department reported Thursday that initial filings for state jobless benefits surged to 573,000 for the week ended Dec. 6. It was the highest number of jobless claims since Nov. 27, 1982 when initial filings hit 612,000.”

Nothing in the above statement is false, but things aren’t nearly as bad as the statement suggests. The 612,000 new UC claims in 1982 was .55% (not 55%, but just a bit over a half of one percent) of the 1982 labor force of 110 million. The 573,000 new UC claims in December of 2008 were only .37% of the 2008 labor force, which has grown to 155 million. While the absolute numbers of initial jobless claims are nearly equal, as a percentage of the labor force, things were lot worse in 1982.

The US economy will begin its rebound by the end of this year, not because of, but in spite of the “drunken sailor” spending of our Federal Government. However, it is infinitely better when a drunken sailor spends money than when the Federal Government spends money. First of all, the drunken sailor spends his own money, not that of his fellow citizens. Second, unlike the Federal Government, which borrows from the Chinese to finance its drunken binges, drunken sailors actually pay their bartenders in cash!

From the strange world of “Coo-Coo Rod” Blagojevich, “Un-Funny Al” Franken, and “Sleazy Norm” Coleman, have yourselves a good week!