LERA LYNN // WOLF LIKE ME on Vimeo

LERA LYNN // WOLF LIKE ME from SLOW RECORDS STUDIOS on Vimeo.

Commodities on the rise - still. And then Some.

Legendary global investor and chairman of Singapore-based Rogers Holdings, Jim Rogers expects the US to lose its AAA credit rating after Standard & Poor's revised its outlook on US sovereign debt to "negative" from "stable".
S&P said last week the United States had until 2013 to come up with a credible plan for addressing its financial problems.
Speaking to Investment Week, Rogers said: “Eventually it will happen. Not this month, or this quarter, but it is certainly going to happen”.
“The US is the largest indebted nation in the history of the world and the debt is going higher and higher," Rogers added.
A new report from Deutsche Bank ranks the US government as the world's fourth riskiest sovereign borrower, behind Greece, Ireland and Portugal, and just ahead of Italy.
"Because the US has, relative to its 'AAA' peers, what we consider to be very large budget deficits and rising government indebtedness and the path to addressing these is not clear to us, we have revised our outlook on the long-term rating to negative from stable," S&P said in a statement.
"More than two years after the beginning of the recent crisis, U.S. policymakers have still not agreed on how to reverse recent fiscal deterioration or address longer-term fiscal pressures," said S&P credit analyst Nikola G. Swann.
“The government is printing money to solve this problem and I cannot imagine lending money to the US government for 30 years in US dollars at 3%, 4%, 5% or 6% interest, as the government will never be able to pay off those debts, ” Rogers told Investment Week.
Speaking to India's Economic Times (ET), the renowned investor reiterated he was poised to sell short US treasury bonds.
"I have no position in US treasury bonds. I am waiting to sell them short," Rogers said.
"I plan to sell short US government bonds sometime in the next few weeks, months. Interest rates all over the world are going to go higher. We have inflation, staggering debt problems and currency problems facing us. So interest rates are going to go higher," he added.
Asked about the US dollar, the renowned investor said: "It is a conscious policy of the US, as far as I can see, to debase the currency".
"In fact, what they might say, they want the book value of the US dollar to go down. They think that makes the US more competitive. It has never worked in many countries. In fact, this policy of debasing the currency has never worked throughout history and it would not work this time, not in the long term or the medium term, maybe in the short term," he said.
Asked by ET Now if he thought the Fed would stop buying bonds after June 30, Rogers said "they will stop buying bonds at least for a while because they have said so many times that they are going to".
"I would suspect that after a while, they will be back. Who knows what they will call it? They will make up a new name, but they will be back, they will be printing money again next time things go bad," Rogers predicted.
Rogers, who predicted the start of the global commodities rally in 1999, again reiterated his belief in agriculture commodities. "They are all going to go higher. I mainly buy the Rogers Agricultural Index which has 21 agricultural products. So I own them all," he told ET Now.
Which commodities does he prefer?
"I prefer to look at the things that are still depressed. Natural gas is depressed compared to oil, silver is depressed compared to gold. I would rather look at the things within those sectors to see what are the things that are still depressed and see if maybe that is where we should be putting money".
Clarifying his stance on silver and crude oil, he said: "Silver has certainly gone up a lot in the last 9-10 months. There is no question about that, but remember, silver is still 10% below where it was 31 years ago. I bet you do not know many things that are 10% below where they were 31 years ago".
"Silver has been going up but on a historic basis, it is still very depressed. Oil is up a lot in the last year or two, but remember the known reserves of oil are on a decline. People can moan all they want about," Rogers told ET Now.
"The fact is that the price of oil is up, but where is the oil"

If you don't have possession of your precious metals, you don't have, well anything, do you?

If you’ve been investing in precious metals then you’ve likely made a pretty decent profit on your wealth preservation investment over the last several years. With the popularity of precious metals increasing exponentially as the economic crisis and geopolitical climate heats up, investors looking for protection against inflation and instability have been pouring into precious metals ETFs, stocks, contracts, and pool accounts. For many, the physical metal has become the investment vehicle of choice, but a large portion of investors, especially large buyers, choose to store those metals with their brokers/dealers.

When all hell finally breaks loose, and it’s time to finally sell those assets and trade them in for either paper currency, real estate or other investments, how sure are you that you will be able to take physical delivery of the metals you’ve purchased?

Bill Cramer of St. Louis was pretty confident everything was on the up-and-up. He purchased 5000 ounces of silver back in 2003 for a spot price of $4.94 and stored them with an east coast broker. When he was discussing his holdings with his coin dealer, the dealer dared him to try and take delivery of the metal.

Bill took him up on that dare and contacted his broker requesting to take delivery of his supposed physical metal holdings, for which he had been paying storage fees for years. As you may have guessed, the broker advised him that physically delivering the metals was not possible:


So, I took his dare, I called them up, it was June of last year. The metal I had purchased in January of ’03. I said “I’d really like to take delivery of my metal – the five thousand ounces.” They go “well, that’s not possible.” And, I go “well, I’ve been paying storage fees since January of ’03, what do you mean I can’t take delivery.”

“Well, it’s part of the account. It’s called a pool account. And, you don’t take delivery, you just participate in the appreciation.”

So I immediately sold that 5000 ounces at $18.33 and I had my cell phone in my hand and I immediately purchased 2500 silver eagles at $18.41 and that’s how I reconciled the problem of not being able to take delivery of my physical metal from a brokerage account.

Source: CNBC

If you’re holding metals outside of your immediate possession (i.e. in a safe deposit box, with a family member, an off premises safe or a hole in your backyard), then we strongly suggest you understand what your investment is and is not. If it’s paper, understand that if and when the swindle in paper markets for precious metals is finally understood by mainstream investors, and the paper assets collapse, you will likely be left with nothing.

If you happened to recently purchase $1 billion dollars in gold and have it “safely” stored in a New York bank several thousand miles away, you may want to think twice about whether or not that metal is actually stored, in physical form, or if it’s just another paper swap. If there’s one group of people who have no scruples whatsoever when it comes to the investments and life savings of individuals for whom they manage funds, it’s New York firms and brokers.

Be forewarned and forearmed.







Reprinted from SHTF Plan.



April 25, 2011

Mac Slavo [send him mail] is a small business owner and independent investor.

Copyright © 2011 Mac Slavo

Don't Like a Weak Dollar? Might as Well Get Used to It - CNBC

Don't Like a Weak Dollar? Might as Well Get Used to It - CNBC

Jeffery Tucker on the Libertarian Utopia of The Jetsons

Pushing Buttons Like The Jetsons

In the classic and futuristic television series from 1962 to 1963 – I admit that I adore this show and could watch every episode 100 times – people work only a few hours a day, travel at 500 miles per hour in flying cars that go as fast as 2,500 miles per hour, and the main job is “pushing buttons.”

The galaxy is their home. Healthcare is a complete free market with extreme customer care. Technology was the best (but of course it still malfunctions, same as today). Business is rivalrous, prosperity is everywhere, and the state largely irrelevant except for the friendly policeman who shows up only every once in a while to check things out.

The whole scene – which anticipated so much of the technology we have today but, strangely, not email or texting – reflected the ethos of time: a love of progress and a vision of a future that stayed on course. Appropriately, it was the first show shown on ABC television in color instead of black and white. It was neither utopian nor dystopian. It was the best of life as we know it projected far into the future. People did not dress in uniforms or obey some dictator on a monitor in their homes. The people in the show were as fashion conscious as any American. Their food was not embedded in pill form. They had the equivalent of fast-food delivery services in their homes.

The message is a true one. Human nature and the structure of reality itself don’t change. Only the gizmos we use change. We can become poorer or we can become richer. But the fundamental facts of how the world is built are immutable. Things are scarce but the possibilities for economic creation are infinite in a world of trade, boundaries, law, and private innovation.

Why is it so fun to watch? Because it is a cartoon, because neat gadgets are everywhere, but mostly it amuses us because everyone seems so strangely blasé about all the miracles that surround them. They are living in postmodern houses that seem to be braced on some giant poll in the sky, and yet they think and act just like the rest of us who live on the ground. They aren’t surprised by anything, no matter how amazing.

And despite the extraordinary conveniences of life, the essential problems are the same, the human vices documented since the beginning of the written human language. The kids have the same trouble as our kids. “Daughter Judy” is spoiled and pouts too much; “his boy Elroy” gets into trouble; George tries in vain to solve all troubles but is mainly concerned about keeping his job; and “Jane his wife” keeps the home together.

The persistence of choice leads to complaints that there isn’t enough. “Pushing buttons” is the main thing everyone complains about. When they want to get away and relax, they usually choose some enterprise that offers the experience of a made-up world of the past that seems to take them back to the Old West (the “Beta Bar Ranch”) – but it is only pretend. We have the equivalent with our fantasies of “returning to nature” by shopping at grocery stores with philosophies, or believing that by not printing “this email” we are saving the planet.

In what other ways is our world like theirs? We too are surrounded by amazing miracles generated by private enterprise and entrepreneurship. Every day we wake up to some overnight development that makes our lives slightly better. The advances have come along so quickly that articles on technology written just a few years ago now strike us as old-fashioned.



Boy Elroy has a machine that can conjure up real-time worlds that allow him to play baseball and tennis with family members. We call that the Wii. The vacuum cleaners work without pushing them, and, sure enough, we have those, too. The video phone is the great dream that this show dreamed up. You had to pay. When you call long distance (does anyone remember that?) “collect” (does anyone remember that?), you had to accept or reject the charges. The video phone was strapped to the ceiling and couldn’t be moved, just like telephones were until the day before yesterday.

Peter Sidor, a heavy hitter at the Mises Wiki, recently called my Skype app on my iPhone, something I downloaded the other day just to test it out, and I answered and, voilà, I’m video talking to a colleague in Germany. I walked around with my phone. The app was free. Skype begs me to use the service. The iPhone 4 came with FaceTime built in, not that the appearance of this miracle created much chatter at all.

All this stuff is amazing. It is astounding and beyond belief – more outrageously advanced than anything the makers of The Jetsons could even imagine. With this tiny box in my hand, I can do a real-time video chat with anyone on the planet and pay nothing more than my usual service fee. This means that anyone on the planet can do business with and be friends with any other person on the globe. The borders, the limits, the barriers – they are all being blasted away.

The pace of change is mind-boggling. Email has only been mainstream for 15 years or so, and young people now regard it as a dated form of communication, used only for the most formal correspondence. Today young people use instant messaging through social media, but that’s only for now – and who knows what next year will bring.

Oddly, hardly anyone seems to care, and even fewer care about the institutional force that makes all this possible, which is the market economy. Instead, we just adjust to the new reality. We even hear of the grave problem of “miracle fatigue” – too much great stuff, too often. Truly, this new world seems to have arrived without much fanfare at all. And why? It has something to do with the nature of the human mind, which does not and will not change so long as we live in a world of scarcity. We adjust to amazing things and don’t think much about their source or the system that produces them.

The Jetsons’ world is our world: explosive technological advances, entrenched bourgeois culture, a culture of enterprise that is the very font of the good life. But there is one major difference, and it isn’t the flying car, which we might already have had were it not for the government promotion of roads and the central plan that manages transportation. It is this: we also live in the midst of a gigantic leviathan state that seeks to control every aspect of our life to its smallest detail.

The government is still Flintstones, an anachronism that operates as this massive drag on our lives. With its money manipulations, regulations, taxation, wars (on people, products, and services), prisons, and injustices, we similarly look the other way. We try to find the workaround and keep living like the Jetsons. Oftentimes things don’t go right, and the reason is the anachronism that rules us. And yet, unless we understand cause and effect in the way that the old liberal tradition explained it, we can miss the source.

Regards,

Jeffery Tucker

Sliver is about to take off like a rocket

As a result of active "demonetization" efforts by the IMF and its member central banks, gold and silver have experienced the type of volatility that has given conservative investors reasons not to perceive the metals as dependable cash alternatives. Instead gold and silver have become known as the asset class to hold as a hedge against inflation.

However, during the 1990's, when inflation was in general much higher than it has been since the turn of the millennium, gold and silver prices drifted lower and stagnated. However, since 2000, gold and silver have risen by over 400 and 700 percent respectively. Remarkably, this has occurred over a time frame during which, by most accounts, low inflation has prevailed. How can this be explained?

In 1944 when the U.S. dollar was considered 'as good as gold,' it was made the international reserve currency. This unique status is the reason that Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke was recently able to say that, "The U.S. Government has a technology, called the printing press that allows it to produce as many dollars at it wishes at essentially no cost."


Today, with the Federal Reserve treating the greenback as a never ending lottery ticket for deficit spending politicians, many investors feel the U.S. dollar is good for nothing. As a result there is an increasing international pressure to remove the U.S. dollar's reserve status. Given that there is no widely accepted alternative to the dollar (the euro has many problems of its own), this is creating fears of an international currency crisis, which has fueled interest in precious metals. So metal prices have risen even with low inflation expectations.

In order to paper over the effects of the financial collapse, central banks around the world are printing as fast as their presses can manage. But unlike prior periods of monetary inflation (like the 1970's), some major powers (China) are withdrawing liquidity. In addition, emerging market manufacturers are holding down prices even as currencies lose value. This may explain the strong performance of metals despite seemingly manageable inflation. But if higher prices emerge into the light of day (as they already have in commodities), currency uncertainty combined with high inflation should intensify the market for precious metals. The question then becomes how to play the market.


Gold has always been the reserve asset of choice for central banks and major private investors. But now, as smaller investors become aware that paper dollars are under threat, many are looking towards silver. Taken in aggregate, these smaller investors have enormous buying power. Through ETF's and mining stocks they are not bound by government restrictions on holding precious metals in retirement funds. In contrast to gold, central banks do not hold much silver. They are therefore less able to push down the price of silver by dumping inventory when rising metal prices undermine currency confidence.

Indeed, so far this year, silver is up nearly 50% while gold is up only about 6%. Given these figures, investors may be forgiven if they feel that the big move in silver may be over. Technical analysis may provide comfort.

According to the U.S. geological survey silver is about 17.5 times more abundant than gold in the earth's crust. This ratio has long been appreciated by civilizations throughout history. Thus, in 1792 the newly formed U.S. Congress passed the First Coinage Act, which legally set the valuation ratio of gold/silver at 15 (it was raised to 16 in 1834). In the early 1990's, with silver out of favor with investors, the ratio approached 100. At the beginning of this century gold stood at some $250 an ounce and silver at $4, putting the ratio at about 62. Today, with gold at around $1,500 an ounce and silver at $45, the ratio has closed to around 33. But this is still far higher than the ratio seen in the late 1980's (silver's last mega spike), and if far higher than the natural proportions of gold and silver would suggest.

The demand for physical silver also remains strong, which supports the market for spot silver. Smaller investors may find gold too expensive at $1,461 an ounce, but may be nevertheless prepared to buy several ounces of silver for much less. Potentially, this 'poor man's gold' market may help drive silver prices far faster than gold.


April 22, 2011

John Browne is senior market strategist for Euro Pacific Capital.

The Destruction of Wealth

Second Amendment Rights Once Again at Risk

Second Amendment Rights Once Again at Risk

Certainly no one ever would have expected the ATF to go after shot guns? Just another in eliminating your ability to privately own firearms and become completely defenseless against the govenment.

UT Takes in 1 Billion in Gold to Hedge Against Inflation

Dallas hedge-fund manager J. Kyle Bass helped advise the University of Texas Investment Management Co. on taking delivery of 6,643 gold bars, worth $987 million on April 15, now stored in a bank warehouse in New York. Bass, who made $500 million with 2006 bets on a U.S. subprime-mortgage market collapse, said managers of the endowment, known as UTIMCO, sought board approval to convert its gold investments into bullion this year. A board member, Bass, 41, said he was asked to help with that process. While Bass, a managing partner at Hayman Capital Management LP, said in an April 16 e-mail that “the decision to purchase and take delivery of the physical gold” was made by endowment staff members, “I helped where I could.” Gold futures touched a record $1,489.10 an ounce April 15 in New York before closing at $1,486. The Texas fund’s $19.9 billion in assets ranked it behind only Harvard University’s endowment as of August, according to the National Association of College and University Business Officers. Last year, UTIMCO added about $500 million in gold investments to an existing stake, said Bruce Zimmerman, the endowment’s chief executive officer. The fund’s managers sought to take delivery of bullion to protect against demand for the metal overwhelming supply, according to Bass. Open interest in gold futures and options traded on the Comex typically exceeds supplies held in its warehouses. If the holders of just 5 percent of those contracts opted to take delivery of the metal, there wouldn’t be enough to cover the demand, Bass said. Printing Money “If you own a paper contract where they can only deliver you 10 cents on the dollar or less, you should probably convert it to physical,” said Bass, who isn’t related to Fort Worth’s billionaire Bass family. He said holding cash wasn’t a better choice because the rate of inflation exceeds money-market rates by 2.5 percent to 3 percent, eroding the value of cash. “Central banks are printing more money than they ever have, so what’s the value of money in terms of purchases of goods and services,” Bass said April 15 in a telephone interview. “I look at gold as just another currency that they can’t print any more of.” Sovereign-debt concerns also boosted demand for the metal on April 15, driving Comex futures to an all-time high. The price has climbed 28 percent in the past year. Gold’s 10-year rally has attracted billionaire investors such as George Soros and John Paulson, who seek a store of value as record-low interest rates erode returns on currencies. Wealthy Buyers Few investors take physical delivery of bullion. As of April 14, 2,860 contracts this month, about 0.5 percent of total open interest, had been converted to metal, exchange data show. Physical deliveries have slowed as gold topped records this year, said Blake Robben, a senior market strategist who handles deliveries of Comex metals for clients at Chicago-based broker Lind-Waldock. “It’s usually wealthy individuals with net worths over $1 million who want to take delivery to diversify away from the dollar,” Robben said. “Generally, it’s a big hassle and not worth it to take delivery.” Investors can own 100 ounces of gold futures with Lind- Waldock by paying a $100 fee and putting up $6,571 in a margin account to purchase one contract. To take delivery of a 100- ounce bar, investors have to pay the full price of the contract. Bass, a Texas Christian University graduate who was named to the endowment’s board in August, is a former salesman with Bear Stearns Cos. and Legg Mason Inc. He said about 5 percent of his hedge fund is invested in gold. The endowment, which oversees funds held by the University of Texas System and Texas A&M University, has 664,300 ounces of bullion in a Comex-registered vault in New York owned by HSBC Holdings Plc, the London-based bank, according to a report distributed at a meeting in Austin. “I simply voted as a board member to approve the storage facility and concurred with their decisions,” Bass said.

California is Going Galt!

The Business Relocation Coach: Calif. ‘Disinvestment Events’ Reach New High As Companies Opt for Other States, Nations (Updated April 15 to Reflect New Loss) Since the first of the year (2011), 70 businesses have packed up and left from California. Overbearing governmental regulation and suffocating taxation have forced even some of California's brightest to head out to greener pastures. E-Bay (short for East Bay, as in the San Francisco Bay) and PayPal are closing up shop in San Jose and moving to Austin, TX. Speaking of Texas, with it's lack of state income tax and easy business climate, they came in first place winning 15 of those 70 businesses. My home state of Georgia gained 2 of those companies, Hyundai Capital America in Austell and Vista Metals in Adairsville. Welcome to Georgia - Strikers!

Voting machines likely rigged.

YouTube - Programmer under oath admits computers rig elections Libertarian, David Chastain, has proven here in Georgia that electronic voting machines have a margin of error of at least .08%. Click on the youtube link above to hear sworn testimony by a computer programmer that he has written code to swing an election. How hard can it be to put this to an end?

What The Silver Vigilantes Understand That You Probably Don’t (Arithmetic, Human Nature and other Stuff) « Across the Street

What The Silver Vigilantes Understand That You Probably Don’t (Arithmetic, Human Nature and other Stuff) « Across the Street A Must READ

Think Precious Metals Prices Are A Bubble? Think Again.

Each time the two monetary metals reach new highs, calls for the end of the bull market in gold and silver come quickly and frequently. At $500, $850, and ever since gold first cracked $1,000 per Troy ounce in March 2008, the gold price remained the focus of those paid to report a popular view among those firmly entrenched in a fiat paper system that’s rewarded them handsomely for two generations. Those unencumbered by a financial system—a system that pays its employees “more than four times the average salary in the rest of the economy,” economist Paul Krugman wrote in 2008—make a living by developing a reputation for accurately appraising the current state of the vilified gold and silver market. Otherwise, these unleashed analysts and money managers will no longer retain their flocks and fortunes. One such tell-it-like-it-is investment manager is the publisher and editor of the Gloom Boom Doom Report, Marc Faber—who, as a side matter, says that the choice for the name of his report, Gloom Boom Doom, came about from his observations of changing investor sentiment during complete market cycles. So, is it Gloom, Boom or Doom for the precious metals? Faber rejects the notion of a precious metals market soon entering a “Doom” stage. “If it [gold] were a bubble a lot of people would have gold. The whole world would be trading gold 24 hours a day,” he told CNBC’s Joe Kernen. “But I don’t think it’s really a bubble. I think gold is maybe cheaper today than it was in 1999, when it was $252.” The rise in the gold price (but more spectacularly, in the silver price) has been primarily driven by the Fed’s unprecedented easy-money policies, first, following the popping of the NASDAQ bubble in 2000, then again, much higher in price following the collapse of the financial system, starting in March 2008, with the fall of Wall Street broker-deal/investment banking firm Bear Stearns. Not unlike most global pricing, the world’s traditional monetary metals are denominated in U.S. dollars, so a decline in the dollar’s relative value to world supply of precious metals lifts the price of gold and silver in dollar terms. The future of the gold price is bright as long as Fed chairman Ben Bernanke continues a policy of negative real interest rates—when compared, that is, with the rising rate in living costs, Faber has repeatedly stated. Even if the Fed followed last week’s European Central Bank’s (ECB) quarter-point interest rate hike, the competition for dollars between paper assets and tangible assets won’t tip the tide among investors in favor of paper assets, according to Faber. “One day they [the Fed] will increase it [federal funds] by a quarter percent. But what does it mean when commodity prices are going through the roof, energy prices are going up, health care costs are going up, insurance premiums are going up?” he said. Therefore, Faber posits that cash and debt will lose value relative to “commodities, real estate, art, collectibles and so forth, anything that essentially cannot be multiplied at the same rate as paper money, that is subject to the printing presses of Mr. Bernanke.”

Don't Cry For Me, America

Don't Cry For Me, America thanks to Doug Ross, for continuing to knock them out of the park.

The Dollar is Collapsing, just look at commodies!

This was sent to me by an aquaintence that has over 50,000 ounces of silver. He started buying at $12/oz. The market closed at $43.05 yesterday. It's my belief that until Congress can reign in it's deficit spending and pay off our national debt, the Federal Reserve Bank will continue to print money for them to pay their bills with, effectively destroying the dollar. Since the inception of the Federal Reserve Banking system in the USA, the purchasing power of the dollar has declined by 97%. Remember penny candy? It's not gone because it got expensive, it's gone because the Fed has flooded the market place with dollars. This is the true cause of inflation. And in the case of savings, it's theft. If the Fed increases the money supply by 5% and your bank pays 1% on your savings, they have effectively stolen 4% of your purchasing power.

2011 Federal Budget, In Easy To Understand Numbers

2011 Federal BudgetFederal Budget: $3,820,000,000,000.Income: $2,170,000,000,000.New Debt: $1,650,000,000,000. Amount Cut: $ 38,500,000,000 – about 1% of the total budget. Harry Reid is calling this a “historic amount“. The President said it is a “historic deal”. John Boehner simply said, “we’ve come to an agreement”. Let’s Put This In Perspective: It helps me to think about these numbers in terms that I can relate to. Let’s remove nine zeroes from those numbers and pretend this is a monthly household budget for the fictitious Jones family. Amount of money the Jones family spent this month: $3,820 Total income for the Jones family this month: $2,170 Amount of new debt added to the credit card this month: $1,650 Outstanding balance on the credit card: $14,271 (This represents our national debt). So last night, the Jones’ sat down at the kitchen table and agreed to cut $38 from their monthly budget. A historic amount! At my house, we don’t spend 43% more than we make. I’m willing to bet you don’t either. Why do we let them do it in Washington D.C.?"

Liberty Dollar II – Did Prosecutor Anne Tompkins Violate Ethics Rules? by Bill Rounds

Liberty Dollar II – Did Prosecutor Anne Tompkins Violate Ethics Rules? by Bill Rounds

Nancy Pelosi: 'Elections Shouldn't Matter as Much as They Do' | The Weekly Standard

Nancy Pelosi: 'Elections Shouldn't Matter as Much as They Do' The Weekly Standard

School's food is the only option for some kids - chicagotribune.com

School's food is the only option for some kids - chicagotribune.com

Continuing Resolution? Horse shit.

The elected political elite have done it again. Stir the people into a frenzy over miniscule amounts of money and then pass a resolution to continue their own opulence equating to nearly two trillion dollars without actually doing anything. fucking incredible.

General: U.S. may consider troops in Libya - CBS News

General: U.S. may consider troops in Libya - CBS News What happened to "Absolutely No Boots On The Ground"? Another Obama lie. Where are the Liberal Anti-War Protesters?

Libertarian Argument for Impeachment

Obama impeachment A prominent libertarian constitutional lawyer and civil libertarian has drafted an article of impeachment against President Obama over his attack on Libya, throwing down a legal gauntlet that could be picked up by some Congressional Republicans Bruce Fein, a former Reagan administration official in the Department of Justice and chairman of American Freedom Agenda writes in his 15-page argument of Obama's course that "Barack Hussein Obama has mocked the rule of law, endangered the very existence of the Republic and the liberties of the people, and perpetrated an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor." Fein is a small-government conservative who worked on the impeachment of President Bill Clinton and also called for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, and his work doesn't represent the Republican Party line. But it comes as some Republicans on the Hill, led by Senator Rand Paul, object vociferously to Obama's decision to strike targets in Libya without Congressional authorization. "He's been more bold than any other president," said Fein, who said Obama has failed to secure congressional approval for his military action in a much more brazen way than previous administrations. "If he can wipe out the war powers authorization, why can't he wipe out Congress's authority to spend?" asked Fein. " If we're going to be a government of laws, and not descend into empire, this is Caesar crossing the Rubicon." Fein said a number of Congressional offices have expressed interest in his proposal. "They actually need to defend constitutional prerogatives," said Fein. "There's definitely been interest on the Hill. There's at least two dozen who have been open to the idea that this is a serious constitutional crisis." Fein's articles of impeachment discuss the run-up to the Libya conflict and conclude, "In all of this, President Barack Obama has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States." ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA RESOLVED, That Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following article of impeachment to be exhibited to the Senate: ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE NAME OF ITSELF AND OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AGAINST BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF ITS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS IN USURPING THE EXCLUSIVE PREROGATIVE OF CONGRESS TO COMENCE WAR UNDER ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 11 OF THE CONSTITUTION. ARTICLE IIn his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has usurped the exclusive power of Congress to initiate war under Article I, section 8, clause 11 of the United States Constitution by unilaterally commencing war against the Republic of Libya on March 19, 2011, declaring that Congress is powerless to constrain his conduct of the war, and claiming authority in the future to commence war unilaterally to advance whatever he ordains is in the national interest. By so doing and declaring, Barack Hussein Obama has mocked the rule of law, endangered the very existence of the Republic and the liberties of the people, and perpetrated an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor as hereinafter elaborated. I.THE IMPEACHMENT POWER 1. Article II, Section IV of the United States Constitution provides: “The President, Vice President and all 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.” 2. According to James Madison’s Records of the Convention, 2:550; Madison, 8 Sept., Mr. George Mason objected to an initial proposal to confine impeachable offenses to treason or bribery: Why is the provision restrained to Treason & bribery only? Treason as defined in the Constitution will not reach many great and dangerous offences. Hastings is not guilty of Treason. Attempts to subvert the Constitution may not be Treason as above defined--As bills of attainder which have saved the British Constitution are forbidden, it is the more necessary to extend: the power of impeachments. 3. Delegates to the Federal Convention voted overwhelmingly to include “high crimes and misdemeanors” in Article II, Section IV of the United States Constitution specifically to ensure that “attempts to subvert the Constitution” would fall within the universe of impeachable offences. Id. 4. Alexander Hamilton, a delegate to the Federal Convention, characterized impeachable offenses in Federalist 65 as, “offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the violation or abuse of some public trust. They are of a nature which with peculiar propriety may be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done to society itself.” 5. In 1974, the House Judiciary Committee voted three articles of impeachment against then President Richard M. Nixon for actions “subversive of constitutional government.” 6. Father of the Constitution, James Madison, observed that, “Of all the enemies of public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other…. War is the true nurse of executive aggrandizement.” 7. James Madison also instructed that “no nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” 8. The exclusive congressional power to commence war under Article I, section VIII, clause XI of the Constitution is the pillar of the Republic and the greatest constitutional guarantor of individual liberty, transparency, and government frugality. II.THE “DECLARE WAR” CLAUSE 9. Article I, Section VIII, Clause XI of the United States Constitution provides: “The Congress shall have the power … To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;” 10. Article II, Section II, Clause I of the United States Constitution provides: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.” 11. The authors of the United States Constitution manifestly intended Article I, Section VIII, Clause XI to fasten exclusive responsibility and authority on the Congress to decide whether to undertake offensive military action. 12. The authors of the United States Constitution believed that individual liberty and the Republic would be endangered by fighting too many wars, not too few. 13. The authors of the United States Constitution understood that to aggrandize power and to leave a historical legacy, the executive in all countries chronically inflates danger manifold to justify warfare. 14. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States, in Federalist 4 noted: [A]bsolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people. 15. Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 69 that the president's Commander-in-Chief authority …would be nominally the same with that of the King of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war, and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all which by the constitution under consideration would appertain to the Legislature. 16. In a written exchange with Alexander Hamilton under the pseudonym Helvidius, James Madison wrote: In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. Beside the objection to such a mixture to heterogeneous powers, the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man; not such as nature may offer as the prodigy of many centuries, but such as may be expected in the ordinary successions of magistracy. War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war, a physical force is to be created; and it is the executive will, which is to direct it. In war, the public treasures are to be unlocked; and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. In war, the honours and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed. It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered, and it is the executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honourable or venial love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace. 17. James Madison also wrote as Helvidius to Alexander Hamilton: Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded. They are barred from the latter functions by a great principle in free government, analogous to that which separates the sword from the purse, or the power of executing from the power of enacting laws. 18. On June 29, 1787, at the Federal Convention, James Madison explained that an executive crowned with war powers invites tyranny and the reduction of citizens to vassalage:In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people. 19. In a letter dated April 4, 1798, James Madison wrote to Thomas Jefferson: The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, & most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature. But the Doctrines lately advanced strike at the root of all these provisions, and will deposit the peace of the Country in that Department which the Constitution distrusts as most ready without cause to renounce it. For if the opinion of the President not the facts & proofs themselves are to sway the judgment of Congress, in declaring war, and if the President in the recess of Congress create a foreign mission, appoint the minister, & negociate a War Treaty, without the possibility of a check even from the Senate, untill the measures present alternatives overruling the freedom of its judgment; if again a Treaty when made obliges the Legislature to declare war contrary to its judgment, and in pursuance of the same doctrine, a law declaring war, imposes a like moral obligation, to grant the requisite supplies until it be formally repealed with the consent of the President & Senate, it is evident that the people are cheated out of the best ingredients in their Government, the safeguards of peace which is the greatest of their blessings. 20. During the Pennsylvania Convention to ratify the Constitution, James Wilson, a future Justice of the United States Supreme Court, observed: This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large: this declaration must he made with the concurrence of the House of Representatives: from this circumstance we may draw a certain conclusion that nothing but our national interest can draw us into a war. 21. In 1793, President George Washington, who presided over the Federal Convention, wrote to South Carolina Governor William Moultrie in regards to a prospective counter-offensive against the American Indian Creek Nation: "The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress, therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure." 22. President Thomas Jefferson, who served as Secretary of State under President Washington, in a statement before Congress regarding Tripoli and the Barbary Pirates, deemed himself “unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense." He amplified: "I communicate [to the Congress] all material information on this subject, that in the exercise of this important function confided by the Constitution to the Legislature exclusively their judgment may form itself on a knowledge and consideration of every circumstance of weight." 23. In a message to Congress in December, 1805 regarding potential military action to resolve a border dispute with Spain, President Thomas Jefferson acknowledged that "Congress alone is constitutionally invested with the power of changing our condition from peace to war, I have thought it my duty to await their authority for using force.” He requested Congressional authorization for offensive military action, even short of war, elaborating: Formal war is not necessary—it is not probable it will follow; but the protection of our citizens, the spirit and honor of our country, require that force should be interposed to a certain degree. It will probably contribute to advance the object of peace. But the course to be pursued will require the command of means which it belongs to Congress exclusively to yield or deny. To them I communicate every fact material for their information, and the documents necessary to enable them to judge for themselves. To their wisdom, then, I look for the course I am to pursue; and will pursue, with sincere zeal, that which they shall approve. 24. In his War Message to Congress on June 1, 1812, President James Madison reaffirmed that the shift in language from make to declare in Article I, Section VIII, Clause XI of the United States Constitution authorized at the Constitutional convention did not empower the Executive to involve the United States military in any action aside from defense against an overt attack. Although President Madison was convinced that Great Britain had undertaken acts of war against the United States, he nevertheless maintained that he could not respond with military force without congressional authorization. He proclaimed:We behold, in fine, on the side of Great Britain, a state of war against the United States, and on the side of the United States a state of peace toward Great Britain.Whether the United States shall continue passive under these progressive usurpations and these accumulating wrongs, or, opposing force to force in defense of their national rights, shall commit a just cause into the hands of the Almighty Disposer of Events, avoiding all connections which might entangle it in the contest or views of other powers, and preserving a constant readiness to concur in an honorable re-establishment of peace and friendship, is a solemn question which the Constitution wisely confides to the legislative department of the Government. In recommending it to their early deliberations I am happy in the assurance that the decision will be worthy the enlightened and patriotic councils of a virtuous, a free, and a powerful nation. 25. In his Records of the Convention, 2:318; Madison, 17 Aug., James Madison wrote that the power “To declare war” had been vested in the Congress in lieu of the power “To make war” to leave to the Executive “the power to repel sudden attacks.” 26. Mr. Elbridge Gerry “never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war,” but still moved with Mr. Madison “to insert declare—in place of make” in Article I, Section VIII, Clause XI. Id. 27. Mr. George Mason was against “giving the power of war to the Executive, because not safely to be trusted with it; or to the Senate, because not so constructed as to be entitled to it. He was for clogging rather than facilitating war; but for facilitating peace.” Yet Mr. Mason “preferred declare to make.” Id. 28. Mr. Roger Sherman “thought [the proposal] stood very well. The Executive shd. be able to repel and not to commence war.” Id. 29. Delegates to the Federal Convention overwhelmingly approved the motion to insert “declare—in place of make,” to deny the Executive power to initiate military action, but to permit the Executive to repel sudden attacks unilaterally. Id. 30. Then Congressman Abraham Lincoln sermonized: Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose — and you allow him to make war at pleasure…. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, to-day, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, "I see no probability of the British invading us" but he will say to you "be silent; I see it, if you don't."The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood. 31. Crowning the President with unilateral authority to commence war under the banner of anticipatory self-defense, prevention of civilian slaughters, gender discrimination, subjugation of ethnic or religious minorities, or otherwise would empower the President to initiate war without limit, threatening the very existence of the Republic. Although a benevolent Chief Executive might resist abuse of an unlimited war power, the principle, if ever accepted by Congress, would lie around like a loaded weapon ready for use by any successor craving absolute power. 32. Thomas Paine justly and rightly declared in Common Sense that "in America, the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other." 33. Article 43 Paragraph 3 of the Charter of the United Nations provides that all resolutions or agreements of the United Nations Security Counsel “shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.” 34. Article 43 Paragraph 3 of Charter of the United Nations was included specifically to allay concerns that prevented the United States of America from ratifying the League of Nations Treaty in 1919. 35. That treaty risked crowning the President with the counter-constitutional authority to initiate warfare. On November 19, 1919, in Section II of his Reservations with Regard to Ratification of the Versailles Treaty, to preserve the balance of power established by the United States Constitution from executive usurpation, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge resolved as follows: The United States assumes no obligation to preserve the territorial integrity or political independence of any other country or to interfere in controversies between nations -- whether members of the League or not -- under the provisions of Article 10, or to employ the military or naval forces of the United States under any article of the treaty for any purpose, unless in any particular case the Congress, which, under the Constitution, has the sole power to declare war or authorize the employment of the military or naval forces of the United States, shall by act or joint resolution so provide.The rejection of Lodge’s reservations by President Woodrow Wilson and his Senate allies insured defeat of the treaty. 36. Section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 clarifies Presidential authority to undertake military action as follows:The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. 37. In United States v. Smith, 27 F. Cas. 1192 (1806), Supreme Court Justice William Paterson, a delegate to the Federal Convention from New Jersey, wrote on behalf of a federal circuit court:There is a manifest distinction between our going to war with a nation at peace, and a war being made against us by an actual invasion, or a formal declaration. In the former case it is the exclusive province of Congress to change a state of peace into a state of war. 38. In Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (1890), the Supreme Court of the United States held:The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent. 39. In his concurrence in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 642-643 (1952), which rebuked President Harry Truman’s claim of unilateral war powers in the Korean War, Justice Robert Jackson elaborated:Nothing in our Constitution is plainer than that declaration of a war is entrusted only to Congress. Of course, a state of war may in fact exist without a formal declaration. But no doctrine that the Court could promulgate would seem to me more sinister and alarming than that a President whose conduct of foreign affairs is so largely uncontrolled, and often even is unknown, can vastly enlarge his mastery over the internal affairs of the country by his own commitment of the Nation's armed forces to some foreign venture. 40. All treaties are subservient to the exclusive congressional power to commence war. In Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 18 (1957), the United States Supreme Court held: There is nothing in [the Constitution’s text] which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. 41. Unconstitutional usurpations by one branch of government of powers entrusted to a coequal branch are not rendered constitutional by repetition. The United States Supreme Court held unconstitutional hundreds of laws enacted by Congress over the course of five decades that included a legislative veto of executive actions in INS v. Chada, 462 U.S. 919 (1982). 42. In their dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), Justices John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia recognized the “Founders’ general distrust of military power lodged with the President, including the authority to commence war:No fewer than 10 issues of the Federalist were devoted in whole or part to allaying fears of oppression from the proposed Constitution’s authorization of standing armies in peacetime. Many safeguards in the Constitution reflect these concerns. Congress's authority "[t]o raise and support Armies" was hedged with the proviso that "no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years." U.S. Const., Art. 1, §8, cl. 12. Except for the actual command of military forces, all authorization for their maintenance and all explicit authorization for their use is placed in the control of Congress under Article I, rather than the President under Article II. As Hamilton explained, the President's military authority would be "much inferior" to that of the British King… (Citing Federalist 69, Supra.) 43. On December 20, 2007, then Senator Hillary Clinton proclaimed: "The President has the solemn duty to defend our Nation. If the country is under truly imminent threat of attack, of course the President must take appropriate action to defend us. At the same time, the Constitution requires Congress to authorize war. I do not believe that the President can take military action — including any kind of strategic bombing — against Iran without congressional authorization." 44. Then Senator Joseph Biden stated in a speech at the Iowa City Public Library in 2007 regarding potential military action in Iran that unilateral action by the President would be an impeachable offense under the Constitution: It is precisely because the consequences of war – intended or otherwise – can be so profound and complicated that our Founding Fathers vested in Congress, not the President, the power to initiate war, except to repel an imminent attack on the United States or its citizens. They reasoned that requiring the President to come to Congress first would slow things down… allow for more careful decision making before sending Americans to fight and die… and ensure broader public support.The Founding Fathers were, as in most things, profoundly right. That’s why I want to be very clear: if the President takes us to war with Iran without Congressional approval, I will call for his impeachment. I do not say this lightly or to be provocative. I am dead serious. I have chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee. I still teach constitutional law. I’ve consulted with some of our leading constitutional scholars. The Constitution is clear. And so am I. I’m saying this now to put the administration on notice and hopefully to deter the President from taking unilateral action in the last year of his administration. If war is warranted with a nation of 70 million people, it warrants coming to Congress and the American people first. 45. In a speech on the Senate Floor in 1998, then Senator Joseph Biden maintained: “...the only logical conclusion is that the framers [of the United States Constitution] intended to grant to Congress the power to initiate all hostilities, even limited wars.” 46. On December 20, 2007, then Senator Barack Obama informed the Boston Globe, based upon his extensive knowledge of the United States Constitution: "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." III.USURPATION OF THE WAR POWER OVER LIBYA 47. President Barack Obama’s military attacks against Libya constitute acts of war. 48. Congressman J. Randy Forbes (VA-4) had the following exchange with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates during a March 31, 2011 House Armed Services Committee Hearing on the legality of the present military operation in Libya:Congressman Forbes: Mr. Secretary, if tomorrow a foreign nation intentionally, for whatever reason, launched a Tomahawk missile into New York City, would that be considered an act of war against the United States?Secretary Gates: Probably so.Congressman Forbes: Then I would assume the same laws would apply if we launched a Tomahawk missile at another nation—is that also true?Secretary Gates: You’re getting into constitutional law here and I am no expert on it.Congressman Forbes: Mr. Secretary, you’re the Secretary of Defense. You ought to be an expert on what’s an act of war or not. If it’s an act of war to launch a Tomahawk missile on New York City would it not also be an act of war to launch a Tomahawk missile by us at another nation?Secretary Gates: Presumably. 49. Since the passage of United Nations Security Council resolution 1973 on March 19, 2011, the United States has detonated over 200 tomahawk land attack cruise missiles and 455 precision-guided bombs on Libyan soil. 50. Libya posed no actual or imminent threat to the United States when President Obama unleashed Operation Odyssey Dawn. 51. On March 27, 2011, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated that Libya never posed an “actual or imminent threat to the United States.” He further stated that Libya has never constituted a “vital interest” to the United States. 52. United Nations Security Council resolution 1973 directs an indefinite United States military quagmire in Libya, authorizing “all necessary measures” to protect Libyan civilians, which clearly contemplates removal by force of the murderous regime of Col. Muammar Qadhafi. 53. In a Letter From the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate sent March 21, 2011, President Barack Obama informed Members of Congress that “U.S. forces have targeted the Qadhafi regime's air defense systems, command and control structures, and other capabilities of Qadhafi's armed forces used to attack civilians and civilian populated areas. We will seek a rapid, but responsible, transition of operations to coalition, regional, or international organizations that are postured to continue activities as may be necessary to realize the objectives of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973.” 54. In his March 21, 2011 letter, President Barack Obama further informed Members of Congress that he opted to take unilateral military action “…in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster.” 55. President Barack Obama has usurped congressional authority to decide on war or peace with Libya, and has declared he will persist in additional usurpations of the congressional power to commence war whenever he decrees it would advance his idea of the national interest. On March 28, 2011, he declared to Congress and the American people: “I have made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies, and our core interests” (emphasis added). 56. President Obama’s humanitarian justification for war in Libya establishes a threshold that would justify his initiation of warfare in scores of nations around the globe, including Iran, North Korea, Syria, Sudan, Myanmar, China, Belarus, Zimbabwe, Cuba, and Russia. 57. In Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928), Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote on behalf of a majority of the United States Supreme Court:Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding. 58. President Barack Obama has signed an order, euphemistically named a “Presidential Finding,” authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, further entangling the United States in the Libyan conflict, despite earlier promises of restraint. Truth is invariably the first casualty of war. 59. In response to questions by Members of Congress during a classified briefing on March 30, 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton indicated that the President needs no Congressional authorization for his attack on the Libyan nation, and will ignore any Congressional attempt by resolution or otherwise to constrain or halt United States participation in the Libyan war. 60. On March 30, 2011, by persistent silence or otherwise, Secretary Clinton rebuffed congressional inquiries into President Obama’s view of the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution of 1973. She failed to cite a single judicial decision in support of President Obama’s recent actions, relying instead on the undisclosed legal opinions of White House attorneys. 61. President Barack Obama, in flagrant violation of his constitutional oath to execute his office as President of the United States and preserve and protect the United States Constitution, has usurped the exclusive authority of Congress to authorize the initiation of war, in that on March 19, 2011 President Obama initiated an offensive military attack against the Republic of Libya without congressional authorization. In so doing, President Obama has arrested the rule of law, and saluted a vandalizing of the Constitution that will occasion ruination of the Republic, the crippling of individual liberty, and a Leviathan government unless the President is impeached by the House of Representatives and removed from office by the Senate.In all of this, President Barack Obama has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. originally published by Ben Smith at Politico Decide for yourself if the case is made. I believe it has.

Why I am a Libertarian

I've never been one to go "all in" with the mainstream. I realized after years of picking the lessor of two evils in every election, that the mainstream political parties were always going to be more of the same, no matter what they promised. I felt trapped in a system that offered no way to effect real change in government. While driving across upstate New York, I heard an address to the National Press Club by Ross Perot ( I know, not exactly a Libertarian), who was speaking about the ideas of real liberty and freedom. This man was certainly not more of the same old, same old and for the first time in my adult life, I started exploring the possibility of changing the way that we, as Americans, do business in Washington.I started reading books on economics at the suggestion of a friend. He steered me towards the works of Ludwig von Mises and many of the others of the Austrian School. I read Rothbard's What Has the Government Done To Our Money , and Mises Economic Policy: Thoughts for Today and Tomorrow to begin with and ,then consumed everything I could get my hands on; Adams, Bastiat, Block, Paul, Tucker, etc... and one day realized that economic freedom is the root of true liberty. I realized just how little true liberty modern Americans really have. Sure, we all love the slogan "Land of the Free and Home of The Brave", but the truth is we are oppressed by the size of government today. Medieval serfs paid 30% tribute to their masters and were considered slaves. Modern Americans pay on average 50% to the government in the form of income taxes, sales taxes, ad valorum taxes, luxury taxes, fuel taxes, cigarette taxes, alcohol taxes, capital gains taxes, property taxes, Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, Medicaid taxes, even death taxes, just to name a few. So, does that make us slaves? I think so.The platform of the Libertarian Party appealed to me because it to is rooted in real economic freedom.The truths and ideals that Libertarians believe in are not possible without true economic freedom. Jefferson astutely pointed out this truth in his first inaugural address in 1801 “A wise and frugal government….shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government”I am a Libertarian because I believe in the sovereignty of the individual, the ability to make decisions for myself and take responsibility for my own actions, that I can decide better what is right for my own life than can a state bureaucracy, that no one's liberties give them the right to deny the rights of others, that the use of force which results in the deaths of others in order to achieve political or social goals is the ultimate violation of rights, that the unalienable rights guaranteed by our Constitution belong to all of us - equally.