As we look back on the horrors of the dictatorships and autocracies of the past, one particular question consistently arises; how was it possible for the common men of these eras to NOT notice what was happening around them? How could they have stood as statues unaware or uncaring as their cultures were overrun by fascism, communism, collectivism, and elitism? Of course, we have the advantage of hindsight, and are able to research and examine the misdeeds of the past at our leisure. Unfortunately, such hindsight does not necessarily shield us from the long cast shadow of tyranny in our own day. For that, the increasingly uncommon gift of foresight is required…
At bottom, the success of despotic governments and Big Brother societies hinges upon a certain number of political, financial, and cultural developments. The first of which is an unwillingness in the general populace to secure and defend their own freedoms, making them completely reliant on corrupt establishment leadership. For totalitarianism to take hold, the masses must not only neglect the plight of their country, and the plight of others, but also be completely uninformed of the inherent indirect threats to their personal safety. They must abandon all responsibility for their destinies, and lose all respect for their own humanity. They must, indeed, become domesticated and mindless herd animals without regard for anything except their fleeting momentary desires for entertainment and short term survival. For a lumbering bloodthirsty behemoth to actually sneak up on you, you have to be pretty damnably oblivious.
The prevalence of apathy and ignorance sets the stage for the slow and highly deliberate process of centralization. Once dishonest governments accomplish an atmosphere of inaction and condition a sense of frailty within the citizenry, the sky is truly the limit. However, a murderous power-monger’s day is never quite done. In my recent article ‘The Essential Rules of Liberty’ we explored the fundamentally unassailable actions and mental preparations required to ensure the continuance of a free society. In this article, let’s examine the frequently wielded tools of tyrants in their invariably insane quests for total control…
Rule #1: Keep Them Afraid
People who are easily frightened are easily dominated. This is not just a law of political will, but a law of nature. Many wrongly assume that a tyrant’s power comes purely from the application of force. In fact, despotic regimes that rely solely on extreme violence are often very unsuccessful, and easily overthrown. Brute strength is calculable. It can be analyzed, and thus, eventually confronted and defeated. Thriving tyrants instead utilize not just harm, but the imminent THREAT of harm. They instill apprehension in the public; a fear of the unknown, or a fear of the possible consequences for standing against the state. They let our imaginations run wild until we see death around every corner, whether it’s actually there or not. When the masses are so blinded by the fear of reprisal that they forget their fear of slavery, and take no action whatsoever to undo it, then they have been sufficiently culled.
In other cases, our fear is evoked and directed towards engineered enemies. Another race, another religion, another political ideology, a “hidden” and ominous villain created out of thin air. Autocrats assert that we “need them” in order to remain safe and secure from these illusory monsters bent on our destruction. As always, this development is followed by the claim that all steps taken, even those that dissolve our freedoms, are “for the greater good”. Frightened people tend to shirk their sense of independence and run towards the comfort of the collective, even if that collective is built on immoral and unconscionable foundations. Once a society takes on a hive-mind mentality almost any evil can be rationalized, and any injustice against the individual is simply overlooked for the sake of the group.
Rule #2: Keep Them Isolated
In the past, elitist governments would often legislate and enforce severe penalties for public gatherings, because defusing the ability of the citizenry to organize or to communicate was paramount to control. In our technological era, such isolation is still used, but in far more advanced forms. The bread and circus lifestyle of the average westerner alone is enough to distract us from connecting with each other in any meaningful fashion, but people still sometimes find ways to seek out organized forms of activism.
Through co-option, modern day tyrant’s can direct and manipulate opposition movements. By creating and administrating groups which oppose each other, elites can then micromanage all aspects of a nation on the verge of revolution. These “false paradigms” give us the illusion of proactive organization, and the false hope of changing the system, while at the same time preventing us from seeking understanding in one another. All our energies are then muted and dispersed into meaningless battles over “left and right”, or “Democrat versus Republican”, for example. Only movements that cast aside such empty labels and concern themselves with the ultimate truth of their country, regardless of what that truth might reveal, are able to enact real solutions to the disasters wrought by tyranny.
In more advanced forms of despotism, even fake organizations are disbanded. Curfews are enforced. Normal communications are diminished or monitored. Compulsory paperwork is required. Checkpoints are instituted. Free speech is punished. Existing groups are influenced to distrust each other or to disintegrate entirely out of dread of being discovered. All of these measures are taken by tyrants primarily to prevent ANY citizens from gathering and finding mutual support. People who work together and organize of their own volition are unpredictable, and therefore, a potential risk to the state.
Rule #3: Keep Them Desperate
You’ll find in nearly every instance of cultural descent into autocracy, the offending government gained favor after the onset of economic collapse. Make the necessities of root survival an uncertainty, and people without knowledge of self sustainability and without solid core principles will gladly hand over their freedom, even for mere scraps from the tables of the same men who unleashed famine upon them. Financial calamities are not dangerous because of the poverty they leave in their wake; they are dangerous because of the doors to malevolence that they leave open.
Destitution leads not just to hunger, but also to crime (private and government). Crime leads to anger, hatred, and fear. Fear leads to desperation. Desperation leads to the acceptance of anything resembling a solution, even despotism.
Autocracies pretend to cut through the dilemmas of economic dysfunction (usually while demanding liberties be relinquished), however, behind the scenes they actually seek to maintain a proscribed level of indigence and deprivation. The constant peril of homelessness and starvation keeps the masses thoroughly distracted from such things as protest or dissent, while simultaneously chaining them to the idea that their only chance is to cling to the very government out to end them.
Rule #4: Send Out The Jackboots
This is the main symptom often associated with totalitarianism. So much so that our preconceived notions of what a fascist government looks like prevent us from seeing other forms of tyranny right under our noses. Some Americans believe that if the jackbooted thugs are not knocking on every door, then we MUST still live in a free country. Obviously, this is a rather naïve position. Admittedly, though, goon squads and secret police do eventually become prominent in every failed nation, usually while the public is mesmerized by visions of war, depression, hyperinflation, terrorism, etc.
When law enforcement officials are no longer servants of the people, but agents of a government concerned only with its own supremacy, serious crises emerge. Checks and balances are removed. The guidelines that once reigned in police disappear, and suddenly, a philosophy of superiority emerges; an arrogant exclusivity that breeds separation between law enforcement and the rest of the public. Finally, police no longer see themselves as protectors of citizens, but prison guards out to keep us subdued and docile.
As tyranny grows, this behavior is encouraged. Good men are filtered out of the system, and small (minded and hearted) men are promoted.
At its pinnacle, a police state will hide the identities of most of its agents and officers, behind masks or behind red tape, because their crimes in the name of the state become so numerous and so sadistic that personal vengeance on the part of their victims will become a daily concern.
Rule #5: Blame Everything On The Truth Seekers
Tyrants are generally men who have squelched their own consciences. They have no reservations in using any means at their disposal to wipe out opposition. But, in the early stages of their ascent to power, they must give the populace a reason for their ruthlessness, or risk being exposed, and instigating even more dissent. The propaganda machine thus goes into overdrive, and any person or group that dares to question the authority or the validity of the state is demonized in the minds of the masses.
All disasters, all violent crimes, all the ills of the world, are hoisted upon the shoulders of activist groups and political rivals. They are falsely associated with fringe elements already disliked by society (racists, terrorists, etc). A bogus consensus is created through puppet media in an attempt to make the public believe that “everyone else” must have the same exact views, and those who express contrary positions must be “crazy”, or “extremist”. Events are even engineered by the corrupt system and pinned on those demanding transparency and liberty. The goal is to drive anti-totalitarian organizations into self censorship. That is to say, instead of silencing them directly, the state causes activists to silence themselves.
Tyrannical power structures cannot function without scapegoats. There must always be an elusive boogie man under the bed of every citizen, otherwise, those citizens may turn their attention, and their anger, towards the real culprit behind their troubles. By scapegoating stewards of the truth, such governments are able to kill two birds with one stone.
Rule #6: Encourage Citizen Spies
Ultimately, the life of a totalitarian government is not prolonged by the government itself, but by the very people it subjugates. Citizen spies are the glue of any police state, and our propensity for sticking our noses into other peoples business is highly valued by Big Brother bureaucracies around the globe.
There are a number of reasons why people participate in this repulsive activity. Some are addicted to the feeling of being a part of the collective, and “service” to this collective, sadly, is the only way they are able to give their pathetic lives meaning. Some are vindictive, cold, and soulless, and actually get enjoyment from ruining others. And still, like elites, some long for power, even petty power, and are willing to do anything to fulfill their vile need to dictate the destinies of perfect strangers.
Citizen spying is almost always branded as a civic duty; an act of heroism and bravery. Citizen spies are offered accolades and awards, and showered with praise from the upper echelons of their communities. People who lean towards citizen spying are often outwardly and inwardly unimpressive; physically and mentally inept. For the average moral and emotional weakling with persistent feelings of inadequacy, the allure of finally being given fifteen minutes of fame and a hero’s status (even if that status is based on a lie) is simply too much to resist. They begin to see “extremists” and “terrorists” everywhere. Soon, people afraid of open ears everywhere start to watch what they say at the supermarket, in their own backyards, or even to family members. Free speech is effectively neutralized.
Rule #7: Make Them Accept The Unacceptable
In the end, it is not enough for a government fueled by the putrid sludge of iniquity to lord over us. At some point, it must also influence us to forsake our most valued principles. Tyrannies are less concerned with dominating how we live, so much as dominating how we think. If they can mold our very morality, they can exist unopposed indefinitely. Of course, the elements of conscience are inborn, and not subject to environmental duress as long as a man is self aware. However, conscience can be manipulated if a person has no sense of identity, and has never put in the effort to explore his own strengths and failings. There are many people like this in America today.
Lies become “necessary” in protecting the safety of the state. War becomes a tool for “peace”. Torture becomes an ugly but “useful” method for gleaning important information. Police brutality is sold as a “natural reaction” to increased crime. Rendition becomes normal, but only for those labeled as “terrorists”. Assassination is justified as a means for “saving lives”. Genocide is done discretely, but most everyone knows it is taking place. They simply don’t discuss it.
All tyrannical systems depend on the apathy and moral relativism of the inhabitants within their borders. Without the cooperation of the public, these systems cannot function. The real question is, how many of the above steps will be taken before we finally refuse to conform? At what point will each man and woman decide to break free from the dark path blazed before us and take measures to ensure their independence? Who will have the courage to develop their own communities, their own alternative economies, their own organizations for mutual defense outside of establishment constructs, and who will break under the pressure to bow like cowards? How many will hold the line, and how many will flee?
For every American, for every human being across the planet who chooses to stand immovable in the face of the very worst in mankind, we come that much closer to breathing life once again into the very best in us all.
Reprinted with permission from http://www.alt-market.com/, a barter networking and informational website
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Just a few questions about what is truely necessary.
"Should those on welfare who have more than three children still qualify for increased assistance for each additional offspring?"
"Does the affluent class deserve mortgage-interest deductions on second and third homes?"
"Should U.S. troops subsidize the defense of an allied and rich Germany or Japan 66 years after World War II?"
Do the almost 50 million people now on "food stamps" all truly need them? Are they all starving to death? Is the program fraud-free and used only to buy bare necessities?
Is 99 weeks of unemployment (or more) reasonable?
Can someone who owns an iPhone, a big-screen television, a laptop computer, and a comfy leather couch really be called "poor"?
We can no longer afford the liberal philosophy of redistribution. "There is a certain brutal honesty about this debt crisis. It is slowly beginning to force us to see the world in the tragic way it is, rather than in the therapeutic way we dream it must be." - Historian Victor Davis Hanson
But as Greece showed us -- and the public sector battle in Wisconsin hinted at -- civil unrest could be on the horizon rather than a becalmed expiation of liberals' sins.
Hope for the best. Prepare for the worst.
"Does the affluent class deserve mortgage-interest deductions on second and third homes?"
"Should U.S. troops subsidize the defense of an allied and rich Germany or Japan 66 years after World War II?"
Do the almost 50 million people now on "food stamps" all truly need them? Are they all starving to death? Is the program fraud-free and used only to buy bare necessities?
Is 99 weeks of unemployment (or more) reasonable?
Can someone who owns an iPhone, a big-screen television, a laptop computer, and a comfy leather couch really be called "poor"?
We can no longer afford the liberal philosophy of redistribution. "There is a certain brutal honesty about this debt crisis. It is slowly beginning to force us to see the world in the tragic way it is, rather than in the therapeutic way we dream it must be." - Historian Victor Davis Hanson
But as Greece showed us -- and the public sector battle in Wisconsin hinted at -- civil unrest could be on the horizon rather than a becalmed expiation of liberals' sins.
Hope for the best. Prepare for the worst.
Monday, July 25, 2011
But we have a chance to be part of something HISTORIC!
I had an argument with a friend about who to vote for in the 2008 presidential election. His comment to me was "But we have a chance to be part of something HISTORIC!" My friend was right, of course. But I don't think this is exactly what he meant.
• First President to Preside Over a Cut to the Credit Rating of the United States Government
• First President to Violate the War Powers Act
• First President to Orchestrate the Sale of Murder Weapons to Mexican Drug Cartels
• First President to be Held in Contempt of Court for Illegally Obstructing Oil Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico
• First President to Defy a Federal Judge's Court Order to Cease Implementing the 'Health Care Reform' Law
• First President to Require All Americans to Purchase a Product From a Third Party
• First President to Spend a Trillion Dollars on 'Shovel-Ready' Jobs -- and Later Admit There Was No Such Thing as Shovel-Ready Jobs
• First President to Abrogate Bankruptcy Law to Turn Over Control of Companies to His Union Supporters
• First President to Bypass Congress and Implement the DREAM Act Through Executive Fiat
• First President to "Order a Secret Amnesty Program that Stopped the Deportations of Illegal Immigrants Across the U.S., Including Those With Criminal Convictions"
• First President to Demand a Company Hand Over $20 Billion to One of His Political Appointees
• First President to Terminate America's Ability to Put a Man into Space.
• First President to Encourage Racial Discrimination and Intimidation at Polling Places
• First President to Have a Law Signed By an 'Auto-pen' Without Being "Present"
• First President to Arbitrarily Declare an Existing Law Unconstitutional and Refuse to Enforce It
• First President to Threaten Insurance Companies if they Publicly Speak out on the Reasons for their Rate Increases
• First President to Tell a Major Manufacturing Company In Which State They Are Allowed to Locate a Factory
• First President to File Lawsuits Against the States He Swore an Oath to Protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN, etc.)
• First President to Withdraw an Existing Coal Permit That Had Been Properly Issued Years Ago
• First President to Fire an Inspector General of Americorps for Catching One of His Friends in a Corruption Case
• First President to Propose an Executive Order Demanding Companies Disclose Their Political Contributions to Bid on Government Contracts
• First President to Golf 73 Separate Times in His First Two-and-a-Half Years in Office
But remember: he will not rest until all Americans have jobs, affordable homes, green-energy vehicles, and the environment is repaired, etc., etc., etc.
(Hat tip -Doug Ross for the links)
I have to wonder why this man still has the support of 41% of Americans? What has he done to earn the support of anyone?
I suppose the answer to that question is simple after you consider that there are 47 million people collecting foodstamps. Unemployment benefits for another 15 million people were extended to nearly two years in total. Then there are those that support him purely along political party lines, racial lines or because of favors done for the unions, etc..
Why is this man still in office? Why is he not in prison?
Several of the items listed above are impeachable offenses, violation of the War Powers Act and orchestrating the sale of weapons to drug cartels, cheif among them. If found guilty of either of those offenses, it would be prudent to go ahead and charge him as an accessory to the murders of hundreds and possibly thousands of people in both Libya and Mexico.
• First President to Preside Over a Cut to the Credit Rating of the United States Government
• First President to Violate the War Powers Act
• First President to Orchestrate the Sale of Murder Weapons to Mexican Drug Cartels
• First President to be Held in Contempt of Court for Illegally Obstructing Oil Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico
• First President to Defy a Federal Judge's Court Order to Cease Implementing the 'Health Care Reform' Law
• First President to Require All Americans to Purchase a Product From a Third Party
• First President to Spend a Trillion Dollars on 'Shovel-Ready' Jobs -- and Later Admit There Was No Such Thing as Shovel-Ready Jobs
• First President to Abrogate Bankruptcy Law to Turn Over Control of Companies to His Union Supporters
• First President to Bypass Congress and Implement the DREAM Act Through Executive Fiat
• First President to "Order a Secret Amnesty Program that Stopped the Deportations of Illegal Immigrants Across the U.S., Including Those With Criminal Convictions"
• First President to Demand a Company Hand Over $20 Billion to One of His Political Appointees
• First President to Terminate America's Ability to Put a Man into Space.
• First President to Encourage Racial Discrimination and Intimidation at Polling Places
• First President to Have a Law Signed By an 'Auto-pen' Without Being "Present"
• First President to Arbitrarily Declare an Existing Law Unconstitutional and Refuse to Enforce It
• First President to Threaten Insurance Companies if they Publicly Speak out on the Reasons for their Rate Increases
• First President to Tell a Major Manufacturing Company In Which State They Are Allowed to Locate a Factory
• First President to File Lawsuits Against the States He Swore an Oath to Protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN, etc.)
• First President to Withdraw an Existing Coal Permit That Had Been Properly Issued Years Ago
• First President to Fire an Inspector General of Americorps for Catching One of His Friends in a Corruption Case
• First President to Propose an Executive Order Demanding Companies Disclose Their Political Contributions to Bid on Government Contracts
• First President to Golf 73 Separate Times in His First Two-and-a-Half Years in Office
But remember: he will not rest until all Americans have jobs, affordable homes, green-energy vehicles, and the environment is repaired, etc., etc., etc.
(Hat tip -Doug Ross for the links)
I have to wonder why this man still has the support of 41% of Americans? What has he done to earn the support of anyone?
I suppose the answer to that question is simple after you consider that there are 47 million people collecting foodstamps. Unemployment benefits for another 15 million people were extended to nearly two years in total. Then there are those that support him purely along political party lines, racial lines or because of favors done for the unions, etc..
Why is this man still in office? Why is he not in prison?
Several of the items listed above are impeachable offenses, violation of the War Powers Act and orchestrating the sale of weapons to drug cartels, cheif among them. If found guilty of either of those offenses, it would be prudent to go ahead and charge him as an accessory to the murders of hundreds and possibly thousands of people in both Libya and Mexico.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
More Reasons To Vote For Ron Paul: Sizing Up the Republican Field: Fascists, Clowns, and Creeps
This is not an exhaustive list of everyone who is running for the GOP nomination, or everyone who might. It is a sample of potential candidates comprehensive enough to demonstrate the utter futility of relying on the so-called Republican frontrunners or their carbon copies to pose any sort of principled opposition to Obama. This article is also not thorough on all the problems with each of these men and women, but rather just gives a taste.
I do not include Ron Paul here, and it almost pains me to mention his name in the same article. I also am not including Gary Johnson, a candidate whose positions on some important issues are not as libertarian as Ron’s but who is nevertheless far better than anyone explored below. Johnson has been marginalized out of the debates, and I feel bad for that. They would do the same to Ron if they could get away with it.
I think there is at least a strong possibility one of the forthcoming names will be at the top of the ticket in 2012, and if that is the case, there will probably be no reason a fan of liberty should care much about who wins.
Romney the Health Care Commie
Mitt Romney frightened me in 2008 when he suggested we might want to "double Guantánamo." On all the issues where Republicans are bad, he is bad. On some issues where Republicans are not always horrible, like gun control, Romney’s record is spotty at best.
Most conspicuous is his failure to have a principled critique of Obama’s most significant policy achievement that the GOP opposed fairly consistently. Romney is on constitutionally legitimate ground when he mounts the federalism defense of Romneycare while still criticizing Obamacare. His point that in a free republic, the states should be laboratories of democracy and the federal government should butt out, is valid. American socialism is indeed more constitutionally sound and less damaging this way.
But socialized medicine is still bad policy, morally and economically, even if done on the state level. American conservatives deride "Taxachussetts" for its state-level government interventions all the time. What’s more, the constitutional argument carries no weight coming from a big-government Republican. Does Romney oppose Medicare, Social Security, national education standards, plenary federal regulation of industry, the Federal Reserve, the FDA, and the war on drugs? None of these programs are any more constitutionally sound than Obamacare.
This inconsistency will probably not hurt him in the long run, since most Republicans are equally hypocritical. Most American conservatives have become snookered by the mild socialism of both parties. The New Deal/Great Society/Compassionate Conservative agenda of entitlement guarantees, cascading deficit spending, and federal support for the old, sick, needy, and indeed most of the middle class is a fixture of every political program to be advanced in a Republican presidential bid in a general election since the 1960s. Goldwater was the last one who didn’t always sound like he was talking out of both sides of his mouth and much of his party was uncomfortable with him. Unfortunately, Romney’s weak critique of Democratic statism is par for the course.
This is fiscal conservatism today. This is the Republican Party: Medicare D, No Child Left Behind, new national bureaucracies, endless unfunded wars, deficit spending to finance the welfare-warfare state of FDR, LBJ and George W. Bush. Romney is not a RINO (Republican in Name Only). He is in fact a quintessential modern Republican, and that is the great tragedy. He thus has a decent shot at the White House, but no one who loves liberty should help him get there.
Rudy Giuliani’s Handcuffed Entrepreneurs and Nightstick to the Knee
Rudy might throw his hat in or not, but he is worth at least passing mention. Religious conservatives warmed up to this pro-choice social liberal for one major reason: On 9/11, he was able to profit politically more than any politician not in the Bush administration. As was revealed later, it was his decision as mayor of New York to put the emergency response center inside the World Trade Center, despite its known vulnerability, having been attacked in 1993, that exacerbated the situation when the Twin Towers fell. Other problems with the response have also been pinned on him. Such critiques might be hitting below the belt if not for his long record of running on the platform of having been mayor on 9/11.
Giuliani still gets credit for "cleaning up" the Big Apple, although some have noted the mysterious nature of the reduced vagrant and street criminal populations. He has been accused of simply sweeping them into New Jersey. Surely his draconian drug war and other "tough on crime" developments – cracking down on people with dime bags and jailing homeless people for the most minor transgressions – should give us pause about the prospect of Rudy with the nuclear button.
Giuliani also has a record of anti-capitalist witch-hunting that easily compares to the socialistic biases of Obama’s crew of pinkos. As the great, late Burt Blumert reminded us on why he hated the man with a passion, Rudy’s oppressive takedown of the heroic capitalist Michael Milken was such a stark act of persecution that it alone should dissuade anyone with any respect at all for the market economy or the rule of law from the notion of ever, under any circumstances, voting for this megalomaniacal monster.
Rick Perry, Totalitarian from Texas
On Groundhog Day, 2007, Rick Perry climbed out of a hole and cast a shadow upon the land. It was on that February 2 that Perry issued an executive decree forcing adolescent Texas girls to get the HPV vaccine, an inoculation that is seemingly effective against a fraction of the human papillomavirus, one of the causes of cervical cancer. There was an opt-out option, but it was still an edict so sickening and invasive we could only expect how social conservatives would react if President Obama attempted such a measure. The presumption of universal sexual conduct among teen girls, the pretentious intervention into every household, the health risks disregarded, the neglected fact that many if not most cases of the very disease being targeted wouldn’t be addressed – the full insidiousness of Perry’s measure escaped most commentators’ notice, including on the right that is today up in arms, correctly, about Obamacare and TSA.
It didn’t hurt Perry’s motivations, probably, that the only FDA-approved vaccine for HPV was produced by Merck, a company that had contributed to Perry’s campaign and had other lobbying connections to his administration associates. The cynical corporatism and predatory statism of this one executive order tell you all you need to know about current frontrunner Rick Perry.
It was no surprise recently that Perry betrayed and derailed the efforts within Texas to hold TSA accountable. For once, there was a proposal to protect the liberty of citizens, in this case against the federal government, and of course Perry sided with the Obama administration against his own subjects. Why challenge the national groping apparatus you are seeking to inherit?
Perry stabbed fiscal conservatives in the back when he supported a rise in the state franchise tax and a controversial property tax reform bill. Like the other Texas Republican governor George W. Bush, Perry would make a terrible president.
Michelle Bachmann: Theocon Israel-Firster
Presidential candidate and Tea Party heroine Michelle Bachmann sure knows how to rile up the red-state base. Talk up the threat of socialism. Praise the Constitution. Even criticize the Federal Reserve a little bit. And this is all well and good, although her consistency even on fiscal issues is quite questionable, given her support for Cap, Cut, and Balance and other such Republican frauds.
But Bachmann holds at least one position that is at complete odds with the more admirable principles on which the United States was founded. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington warned about the danger of permanent and entangling alliances. The United States, as John Quincy Adams put it, "goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."
In her recent video, Bachmann takes a very different position. She says that America’s "alliance with Israel is critical for both nations at all times."
This is a deeply unAmerican sentiment, and you don’t have to be the least bit anti-Israeli to recognize this. She is saying the alliance with Israel is permanent and unmoving, that what is in Israel’s interests is the same as what is in the United States’s interests. Even more troubling, she explicitly conflates the two countries in terms of their national identities:
"Israelis and Americans are two sides of the same coin. We share the same values and the same aspirations. We even share the same exceptional mission – to be a light to the nations. After all, the image of America as the Shining City on the Hill is taken from the Book of Isiah."
This is bizarre, at the very least. Could you imagine a prominent politician getting away with saying this about another country, even one as culturally similar as Great Britain? "Two sides of the same coin"? This video, an attack on Obama for being insufficiently pro-Israel, is essentially arguing that most Americans, unlike the president, recognize that the Israeli nation and the American nation are one and the same.
Indeed, the next line, about how Americans and Israelis supposedly have "the same values and the same aspirations," is also troubling for anyone who thinks the U.S. should look after its own interests. But aside from the objections on America-First grounds, consider the collectivism here, as well as the strange notion that Israelis in particular have the same values. We need not be the slightest bit disparaging of Israelis to see this is not the case – but it is especially ironic coming from someone who claims to defend limited government and free enterprise. After all, Israel is not a capitalist paradise. It is a welfare state. It is more domestically socialist, probably, than the Democrats in the United States. Its militarism and police state might inspire confidence in the Republicans who typically but inconsistently want to defend economic liberty but champion an interventionist military and law enforcement regime. But even by confused Republican standards, Israel is not some sort of paragon of Reagan conservatism, however defined.
And this doesn’t touch on the religious implications of her video. Of course, Christians have long been attacked for speaking their faith in the political and public spheres, and this is a disgrace. Religious conservatives have been demonized by the secular media. Yet when it comes to foreign policy and the actual governmental agenda of the U.S. executive branch, Jefferson was right that there should be a wall of separation between church and state. Madison, the author of the Constitution, was right when he said that religion and government "will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." The whole notion of determining the proper stance of the United States in international affairs on some lines from the Old Testament should frighten even the most devoutly Christian or Jewish, for war and government are not the proper means of salvation. Those who oppose theocracy as well as those who want America to pursue a foreign policy free of permanent, entangling alliances – both groups of whom should include all sane Americans – can’t help but cringe at the sight of Bachmann’s video.
Will she at least stand up for all Christians? Maybe now, but it is at least potentially troubling that the church that she quit only this month held the position that the Pope was the anti-Christ.
Herman Cain, Overrated Modal Conservative
Jon Stewart, in mocking Herman Cain’s proposal that all federal legislation only be a few pages, drew fire from the politically correct right for having mimicked Cain’s voice as well, presumably because it was racist to do so. Stewart shot back with footage of his doing dozens of voices over the years, clearly with an equal-opportunity approach that spared no ethnic or regional group. Yet the same conservatives denouncing all leftist accusations against the Tea Party for being racist are now claiming that the only reason anyone would dislike Cain is because he’s black.
What is confusing to me, however, is why so many have become enamored of Cain. Perhaps it is just his modal conservatism – his willingness to spout old Republican talking points in favor of business but without much substance behind them, and then go off on some culture warring point about the sanctity of marriage or whatever.
Tom Woods has a great video explaining many of the particular problems with Cain. As Tom notes, Cain endorsed Romney in 2008, favored TARP against the "free market purists," defends the bulk of the Patriot Act, has a despicable record on the Federal Reserve, and has no real understanding of economics.
There is one reason, however, that Cain stands up for being particularly dangerous. He has no conception at all of religious liberty in a time when it is under attack. He believes Americans have a right to prohibit mosques from being built, out of the hysterical paranoia that Sharia law will take hold and wipe away all out freedoms and Christian identity as a nation. For similar reasons Cain says appointing Muslims to government would be a big problem for him, as you never know which of them is a terrorist. This ugly anti-Islamism should all by itself should be a deal-breaker for anyone every remotely interested in liberty. Cain is targeting the group most likely to be rounded up and interned should another terrorist incident occur, a group that is already the subject of warmongering hatred, and he is legitimizing this through his candidacy. The bigotry Cain espouses helps foment the aggressive wars that have done more to undermine American freedom in recent decades than anything else.
Rick Santorum’s Crusade Against Freedom
Rick Santorum says he’s in the presidential race to win. In typical campaign-season Republican fashion, he has condemned Obama for having "wrecked our economy, and centralized power in Washington, DC, and robbed people of their freedom."
Of course it is true that Obama has been a disaster for American liberty. It doesn’t take a genius to see this. But one might wonder, what is the alternative Santorum represents?
Santorum’s War Against Contractual Liberty: Central to a free society is the concept of freedom of association. People should be free to disassociate from others as well, for any reason. One application of this principle would be the right of employers (and employees) to end their employment relationship at will – only with the caveat that premature termination in violation of an employment contract be remedied through damages. Certainly, no boss should be forced to hire anyone against his will.
This principle has been eroded severely through Civil Rights and anti-discrimination laws. This is a tragic abandonment of the cornerstone of a free society. But Santorum has proposed, with the support of such Democratic stalwarts as John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Ted Kennedy, to gut this principle even further, by forcing employers to accommodate the religious practices of their workers. This is an egregious attack on economic liberty. It means that a boss would have to make "reasonable" provisions for his employees’ prayers and religious rituals, even if these are at odds with his own values. In a society of religious and contractual liberty, employers wouldn’t have to hire people of any religious persuasion that they didn’t want to, much less subsidize religious practices they did not support. Of course, customers could boycott companies if they found the discrimination or lack of accommodation unfair. But this should be up to free individuals working in the market, never the state.
Santorum’s Attack on the Constitution: Santorum has argued that the federal government should build a wall and use national guards to enforce border security – a usurpation of the proper authority of the states under the Tenth Amendment. He has been an enthusiastic defender of torture, despite the Eighth Amendment, due process rights, and every single standard of human decency. He also voted in support of making warrantless wiretapping easier, in clear violation of the Fourth Amendment; the flag-burning amendment – not actually in violation of the Constitution, but with the opinion, apparently, that the First Amendment needs changing; harsher penalties for drugs, when there is absolutely no authority in the Constitution for the feds to be involved in this at all; draconian penalties for gun violations so long as drugs are involved; federal abstinence education programs, when in fact education is the proper province of the states; a presidential line-item veto, when this is clearly an unconstitutional deprivation of Congress’s legislative authority; the Patriot Act and the evisceration of habeas corpus for detainees in the war on terror. And if you think he only supports cruel measures against those deemed by the government to be "terrorists," keep in mind that this is the man who callously said that victims who didn’t successfully flee New Orleans in the midst of Hurricane Katrina should have been burdened by "tougher penalties."
Santorum’s Battle Against Rationality in Foreign Affairs: Santorum has voted to expand NATO, an outdated Cold War relic; supported stronger sanctions against Syria, Cuba, Iran and even Japan in direct tension with the human right to free trade and the interests of the United States; and backed Clinton’s unconstitutional and unnecessary war with Kosovo, despite the better judgment of many other Republicans. But what else is to be expected from a man so deluded he thought as late as 2006 that Weapons of Mass Destruction were found in Iraq – even as the Bush administration insisted this was not so – and has seriously argued, even in a time when political correctness threatens freedom of inquiry and academic liberty at our universities, that criticism of Israel on college campuses should be federally punished?
Is He Good on Anything? Some will insist that at least Santorum is a fiscal conservative, but he voted for Bush’s deficit-enlarging budgets and does not support abolition of the huge unconstitutional, wasteful and counterproductive federal programs that are drowning this nation in debt – the empire, Social Security, Medicare, and all the rest. He might be marginally less spendthrift than Obama, but wait until you see him in power. He has no compunctions about using the force of the federal government and tax dollars to impose his vision on America – a vision in which employers have to accommodate workers’ religions against their will, a vision in which Washington teaches kids what kind of sexual values to embrace, a vision in which campus criticism of America’s closest Middle East ally is socially engineered out of existence, a vision of social conservatism not nurtured in a humane and virtuous manner by families, churches, and communities, but by the largest political body in the history of the world – the U.S. government. He has no respect for free speech, the Fourth Amendment, or Constitutional limits on the federal police power. Like so many other politicians, he thinks Americans have all too much liberty in many areas, and yet has the temerity to criticize his ideological mirror image, Barack Obama.
Obama has been a nightmare for liberty across the board. So was Bush. If Americans want to finally awake to a future of liberty, they will reject the authoritarian right-wing socialism of Rick Santorum.
Oh No. Another Reagan Republican: Jon Huntsman
Jon Huntsman announced his presidential bid in front of the Statue of Liberty, evoking images of Reagan’s announcement of his own run over three decades ago standing at the same spot. Huntsman, a former Reagan official, reminded his audience that Reagan had "assured us we could ‘make America great again,’ and under his leadership we did."
In 2007, Jon Huntsman openly favored an individual health care mandate – the most directly anti-liberty element to Obamacare. Also as governor of Utah, he signed a global warming initiative agreeing to cut greenhouse gases. Under his stewardship, state spending increased by about 10% a year.
Some will say this means Huntsman is clearly not a real Reagan conservative. Yet Reagan is the president who:
About doubled the size of the federal government
Increased Social Security taxes and the overall tax bite from the American economy
Promised to abolish the Selective Service, the Department of Education, the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Bureau, and did nothing of the sort
As governor, Reagan:
Signed the Mulford Act, banning the carrying of firearms in general terms, setting the stage for California’s modern anti-gun atmosphere
Increased taxes more than any previous governor, including his $1 billion hike in his first year – the largest tax increase in CA history
Immensely expanded the welfare bureaucracy and added over 30,000 employees to the state government payroll
Created 73 new state government councils and commissions, including the horrible California Energy Commission
Oversaw a 122% increase in the state budget
This is the reality of the Reagan legacy. Even as a governor, with no military enemy as an excuse, he acted even worse than the Democratic governors before and after him. And why not? Reagan was a unionist, a Hollywood New Deal Democrat who took on the role of touting free enterprise because he was hired by General Electric to do so. He was a performer who acted his way into the White House, and to this day the Republicans all jump over themselves to claim his mantle, all competing to be described as the most Reaganesque.
Huntsman is indeed a Reagan Republican: a defender of big government who stands in front of the Statue of Liberty without any credibility on what that statue represents.
Tim Pawlenty, Second-Rate Bore for More Government and War
Poor guy. Even given his close relationship to the 2008 John McCain presidential run, Pawlenty has been unable to turn that experience into the credentials needed to run another losing presidential campaign in 2012. He is not the most frightening of the bunch, however, although his dedication to smaller government is par for the course among Republicans. That is to say, he doesn’t have any.
Pawlenty as governor of Minnesota was an enthusiast for public works projects, rail lines, and Target Field, two-thirds of the funding for which was billed to the taxpayers. He is well known for his bill raising the ethanol requirement for gasoline up to 20%. In environmentalist California, the figure is closer to 6%.
Back in March, before Obama committed the United States to yet another anti-Muslim war of aggression, Pawlenty scathingly attacked the administration for being soft on Libya. Condemning the president for caring what other nations thought about American wars, Pawlenty intoned: "What's most important is our nation is secure and respected." Ah. "Respected." So that is the point of these foreign adventures – being treated like the international mob boss. While the other Republicans in the field are now toying with America-First rhetoric concerning this war, Pawlenty has not taken off his campaign website the numerous examples of his being a visionary ahead of the curve, goading the emperor to flex his muscles before Obama himself felt inclined finally to let the bombs drop.
Newt Gingrich the Career Political Outsider
If there is a great silver lining in this election it is that Gingrich is doing so poorly. What a joy to watch him get nowhere, to watch his ego take a beating every day.
Gingrich has boasted that he is not a "Washington figure" and claims that he "will clearly be the most change-oriented, the most fundamental reform candidate in the race." Yes, this from the guy who was recently taken to the woodshed for his comments that Paul Ryan’s ridiculously moderate budget cut proposal was an example of dangerous "right-wing social engineering."
This only demonstrates what is meant these days when someone is called a "Washington outsider." Obama was supposed to be such a candidate, despite his record-busting campaign donations from Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street powerhouses, his unequivocal support for the agenda of AIPAC and other establishment lobbying groups. But even Obama was a better example of an outsider than lifetime government employee John McCain, who laughably ran as a maverick in 2008, defending virtually every element of the Bush regime – the wars, the bailouts, the compassionate conservative welfare statism.
There was a time long before his stint as Speaker of the House when Gingrich was a little bit interesting. In 1982, Newt Gingrich wrote to the Journal of the American Medical Association in defense of medical marijuana. He noted that "Federal law. . . continues to define marijuana as a drug ‘with no accepted medical use,’ and federal agencies continue to prohibit physician-patient access to marijuana. This outdated federal prohibition is corrupting the intent of the state laws and depriving thousands of glaucoma and cancer patients of the medical care promised them by their state legislatures."
Almost 30 years later, is he still asking for a liberalization of federal marijuana law? Quite the reverse. He strongly suggests we need to look at such countries as Singapore for our inspiration on drug policy and does not flinch when it is pointed out that that nation executes drug dealers and issues mandatory drug tests to the general population. These are totalitarian proposals, and Gingrich seems to endorse them emphatically.
Newt’s Contract with America – the Republicans’ literature offering hope and change to the American people – was filled with reforms supposedly aimed at limiting the power of Washington, but much of it had to do with expanding government to crack down on crime or uphold family values. One thing is for certain: the Republican Congress in the 1990s did not cut back government overall. To the contrary, in the 1990s the last federal budget passed by the Republicans was hundreds of billions higher than the last one passed by the Democratic Congress. In some areas, like farm subsidies, spending went up substantially.
The ringleader of the 1990s Republican non-revolution has no hopes, and for this at least we can be grateful.
Sarah Palin: Will the Bulldog with Lipstick Run?
Many have long argued that she would have no chance at the presidency. Only half the Republican voters like her, and none of the Democrats do. Obama is polled to easily defeat her in her own state of Alaska.
Perhaps I am playing into the media zeitgeist by not being a lot more substantive in this discussion. What about Palin’s political positions? Well, she has flip-flopped and equivocated on quite a few questions. But it would be fair to say that she is slightly more fiscally conservative than Obama, in the same ballpark in terms of foreign policy (although with the distinct possibility of surprising us in either direction), and otherwise comfortable with the status quo of bailouts, corporatism, entitlements, huge government, and central management of the economy, with some perfunctory areas where she mildly dissents from the Washington consensus. In other words, she is a typical Republican politician, who might sound a little better than the Democrats when she is out of power, but who always has the potential to prove a neocon in the White House.
Yet it is a mistake to assume the above is the most substantive thing to be said of her. Palin was primarily always a culture-war figure: a rallying point for the heartland to unify and cry out that it had enough of the coastal elitism of the central state and media giants. Yet what were they rebelling against in 2008? Was it the Bush legacy they had voted for? He was, after all, a counterfeit middle American, a Connecticut transplant in the heart of Texas who always advocated big government. The biggest issue to unify the proto-Tea Party uprising of 2008 was, of course, the gigantic Wall Street bailouts, which were advocated and supported by Palin, as well as McCain and Obama. Palin had the problem of running on a ticket calling for hope and change when the Democratic opposition had already trademarked those slogans and was running against the sorry record of her own party’s mismanagement of the economy and two wars. Now the setting is ripe for a run against Obama-style elitist liberalism. The problem is, Palin is a TV star and her own very red state backs the incumbent over her.
There’s lots of talk about whether she can beat Michelle Bachmann. Maybe not. Nevertheless, I still don’t think it’s impossible for her to be president one day, if not in 2013 then down the line. Palin is still very young. She could run every election cycle until 2028 – five elections, inclusive – before she’s any older than Hillary Clinton was in 2008. Think of that. Even if she’s decisively defeated this time, she has plenty of opportunities to make a comeback like Richard Nixon, or Peewee Herman, or Freddy Kreuger, depending on how you regard her.
I for one welcome Palin into the race, as I find her entertaining and somewhat refreshing. My appreciation is nuanced, as I do not think she is any sort of champion of freedom but rather an establishment politician, but it can be fun watching the liberal media stumble over themselves to attack her for cultural reasons, perennially and invincibly clueless that much of the country is on board with her social values. Part of me even wants her to win the White House, not because she will be any better than Obama, necessarily, but because it would serve to educate at least some people. Either the liberals will learn that she is not the devilish threat to their social democracy as they’ve been fearing, or some conservatives will learn that the problem wasn’t Obama but leviathan, or some feminists will learn that a woman in the White House doesn’t mean a more peaceful or less corrupt executive branch any more than a black president means a less predatory criminal justice system. The problem is political power itself, and no modification to the cultural lipstick worn by the empress will mean a damn thing. Perhaps Palin will help bring us closer to the day when Americans recognize that.
The Grand Old Party: A Circus of Fascists, Clowns, and Creeps
As I’ve noted repeatedly here and elsewhere, the Republican Party has always been a party of big government. The exceptions only prove the rule. If any of the above people get the presidential nomination we will again face a contest between two candidates with no reliable respect for the liberal tradition, free trade, peace, freedom of association, civil liberties or free-market capitalism. The bright side is we’ll only be closer to the day when Americans give up on electoral politics as a means to achieve freedom.
Much of this material is adapted from material first published on JohnDennisReport.com. Note this, as well as LewRockwell.com, in any reprints.
July 23, 2011
Anthony Gregory is research editor at the Independent Institute. He lives in Oakland, California. See his webpage for more articles and personal information.
Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
I do not include Ron Paul here, and it almost pains me to mention his name in the same article. I also am not including Gary Johnson, a candidate whose positions on some important issues are not as libertarian as Ron’s but who is nevertheless far better than anyone explored below. Johnson has been marginalized out of the debates, and I feel bad for that. They would do the same to Ron if they could get away with it.
I think there is at least a strong possibility one of the forthcoming names will be at the top of the ticket in 2012, and if that is the case, there will probably be no reason a fan of liberty should care much about who wins.
Romney the Health Care Commie
Mitt Romney frightened me in 2008 when he suggested we might want to "double Guantánamo." On all the issues where Republicans are bad, he is bad. On some issues where Republicans are not always horrible, like gun control, Romney’s record is spotty at best.
Most conspicuous is his failure to have a principled critique of Obama’s most significant policy achievement that the GOP opposed fairly consistently. Romney is on constitutionally legitimate ground when he mounts the federalism defense of Romneycare while still criticizing Obamacare. His point that in a free republic, the states should be laboratories of democracy and the federal government should butt out, is valid. American socialism is indeed more constitutionally sound and less damaging this way.
But socialized medicine is still bad policy, morally and economically, even if done on the state level. American conservatives deride "Taxachussetts" for its state-level government interventions all the time. What’s more, the constitutional argument carries no weight coming from a big-government Republican. Does Romney oppose Medicare, Social Security, national education standards, plenary federal regulation of industry, the Federal Reserve, the FDA, and the war on drugs? None of these programs are any more constitutionally sound than Obamacare.
This inconsistency will probably not hurt him in the long run, since most Republicans are equally hypocritical. Most American conservatives have become snookered by the mild socialism of both parties. The New Deal/Great Society/Compassionate Conservative agenda of entitlement guarantees, cascading deficit spending, and federal support for the old, sick, needy, and indeed most of the middle class is a fixture of every political program to be advanced in a Republican presidential bid in a general election since the 1960s. Goldwater was the last one who didn’t always sound like he was talking out of both sides of his mouth and much of his party was uncomfortable with him. Unfortunately, Romney’s weak critique of Democratic statism is par for the course.
This is fiscal conservatism today. This is the Republican Party: Medicare D, No Child Left Behind, new national bureaucracies, endless unfunded wars, deficit spending to finance the welfare-warfare state of FDR, LBJ and George W. Bush. Romney is not a RINO (Republican in Name Only). He is in fact a quintessential modern Republican, and that is the great tragedy. He thus has a decent shot at the White House, but no one who loves liberty should help him get there.
Rudy Giuliani’s Handcuffed Entrepreneurs and Nightstick to the Knee
Rudy might throw his hat in or not, but he is worth at least passing mention. Religious conservatives warmed up to this pro-choice social liberal for one major reason: On 9/11, he was able to profit politically more than any politician not in the Bush administration. As was revealed later, it was his decision as mayor of New York to put the emergency response center inside the World Trade Center, despite its known vulnerability, having been attacked in 1993, that exacerbated the situation when the Twin Towers fell. Other problems with the response have also been pinned on him. Such critiques might be hitting below the belt if not for his long record of running on the platform of having been mayor on 9/11.
Giuliani still gets credit for "cleaning up" the Big Apple, although some have noted the mysterious nature of the reduced vagrant and street criminal populations. He has been accused of simply sweeping them into New Jersey. Surely his draconian drug war and other "tough on crime" developments – cracking down on people with dime bags and jailing homeless people for the most minor transgressions – should give us pause about the prospect of Rudy with the nuclear button.
Giuliani also has a record of anti-capitalist witch-hunting that easily compares to the socialistic biases of Obama’s crew of pinkos. As the great, late Burt Blumert reminded us on why he hated the man with a passion, Rudy’s oppressive takedown of the heroic capitalist Michael Milken was such a stark act of persecution that it alone should dissuade anyone with any respect at all for the market economy or the rule of law from the notion of ever, under any circumstances, voting for this megalomaniacal monster.
Rick Perry, Totalitarian from Texas
On Groundhog Day, 2007, Rick Perry climbed out of a hole and cast a shadow upon the land. It was on that February 2 that Perry issued an executive decree forcing adolescent Texas girls to get the HPV vaccine, an inoculation that is seemingly effective against a fraction of the human papillomavirus, one of the causes of cervical cancer. There was an opt-out option, but it was still an edict so sickening and invasive we could only expect how social conservatives would react if President Obama attempted such a measure. The presumption of universal sexual conduct among teen girls, the pretentious intervention into every household, the health risks disregarded, the neglected fact that many if not most cases of the very disease being targeted wouldn’t be addressed – the full insidiousness of Perry’s measure escaped most commentators’ notice, including on the right that is today up in arms, correctly, about Obamacare and TSA.
It didn’t hurt Perry’s motivations, probably, that the only FDA-approved vaccine for HPV was produced by Merck, a company that had contributed to Perry’s campaign and had other lobbying connections to his administration associates. The cynical corporatism and predatory statism of this one executive order tell you all you need to know about current frontrunner Rick Perry.
It was no surprise recently that Perry betrayed and derailed the efforts within Texas to hold TSA accountable. For once, there was a proposal to protect the liberty of citizens, in this case against the federal government, and of course Perry sided with the Obama administration against his own subjects. Why challenge the national groping apparatus you are seeking to inherit?
Perry stabbed fiscal conservatives in the back when he supported a rise in the state franchise tax and a controversial property tax reform bill. Like the other Texas Republican governor George W. Bush, Perry would make a terrible president.
Michelle Bachmann: Theocon Israel-Firster
Presidential candidate and Tea Party heroine Michelle Bachmann sure knows how to rile up the red-state base. Talk up the threat of socialism. Praise the Constitution. Even criticize the Federal Reserve a little bit. And this is all well and good, although her consistency even on fiscal issues is quite questionable, given her support for Cap, Cut, and Balance and other such Republican frauds.
But Bachmann holds at least one position that is at complete odds with the more admirable principles on which the United States was founded. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington warned about the danger of permanent and entangling alliances. The United States, as John Quincy Adams put it, "goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."
In her recent video, Bachmann takes a very different position. She says that America’s "alliance with Israel is critical for both nations at all times."
This is a deeply unAmerican sentiment, and you don’t have to be the least bit anti-Israeli to recognize this. She is saying the alliance with Israel is permanent and unmoving, that what is in Israel’s interests is the same as what is in the United States’s interests. Even more troubling, she explicitly conflates the two countries in terms of their national identities:
"Israelis and Americans are two sides of the same coin. We share the same values and the same aspirations. We even share the same exceptional mission – to be a light to the nations. After all, the image of America as the Shining City on the Hill is taken from the Book of Isiah."
This is bizarre, at the very least. Could you imagine a prominent politician getting away with saying this about another country, even one as culturally similar as Great Britain? "Two sides of the same coin"? This video, an attack on Obama for being insufficiently pro-Israel, is essentially arguing that most Americans, unlike the president, recognize that the Israeli nation and the American nation are one and the same.
Indeed, the next line, about how Americans and Israelis supposedly have "the same values and the same aspirations," is also troubling for anyone who thinks the U.S. should look after its own interests. But aside from the objections on America-First grounds, consider the collectivism here, as well as the strange notion that Israelis in particular have the same values. We need not be the slightest bit disparaging of Israelis to see this is not the case – but it is especially ironic coming from someone who claims to defend limited government and free enterprise. After all, Israel is not a capitalist paradise. It is a welfare state. It is more domestically socialist, probably, than the Democrats in the United States. Its militarism and police state might inspire confidence in the Republicans who typically but inconsistently want to defend economic liberty but champion an interventionist military and law enforcement regime. But even by confused Republican standards, Israel is not some sort of paragon of Reagan conservatism, however defined.
And this doesn’t touch on the religious implications of her video. Of course, Christians have long been attacked for speaking their faith in the political and public spheres, and this is a disgrace. Religious conservatives have been demonized by the secular media. Yet when it comes to foreign policy and the actual governmental agenda of the U.S. executive branch, Jefferson was right that there should be a wall of separation between church and state. Madison, the author of the Constitution, was right when he said that religion and government "will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." The whole notion of determining the proper stance of the United States in international affairs on some lines from the Old Testament should frighten even the most devoutly Christian or Jewish, for war and government are not the proper means of salvation. Those who oppose theocracy as well as those who want America to pursue a foreign policy free of permanent, entangling alliances – both groups of whom should include all sane Americans – can’t help but cringe at the sight of Bachmann’s video.
Will she at least stand up for all Christians? Maybe now, but it is at least potentially troubling that the church that she quit only this month held the position that the Pope was the anti-Christ.
Herman Cain, Overrated Modal Conservative
Jon Stewart, in mocking Herman Cain’s proposal that all federal legislation only be a few pages, drew fire from the politically correct right for having mimicked Cain’s voice as well, presumably because it was racist to do so. Stewart shot back with footage of his doing dozens of voices over the years, clearly with an equal-opportunity approach that spared no ethnic or regional group. Yet the same conservatives denouncing all leftist accusations against the Tea Party for being racist are now claiming that the only reason anyone would dislike Cain is because he’s black.
What is confusing to me, however, is why so many have become enamored of Cain. Perhaps it is just his modal conservatism – his willingness to spout old Republican talking points in favor of business but without much substance behind them, and then go off on some culture warring point about the sanctity of marriage or whatever.
Tom Woods has a great video explaining many of the particular problems with Cain. As Tom notes, Cain endorsed Romney in 2008, favored TARP against the "free market purists," defends the bulk of the Patriot Act, has a despicable record on the Federal Reserve, and has no real understanding of economics.
There is one reason, however, that Cain stands up for being particularly dangerous. He has no conception at all of religious liberty in a time when it is under attack. He believes Americans have a right to prohibit mosques from being built, out of the hysterical paranoia that Sharia law will take hold and wipe away all out freedoms and Christian identity as a nation. For similar reasons Cain says appointing Muslims to government would be a big problem for him, as you never know which of them is a terrorist. This ugly anti-Islamism should all by itself should be a deal-breaker for anyone every remotely interested in liberty. Cain is targeting the group most likely to be rounded up and interned should another terrorist incident occur, a group that is already the subject of warmongering hatred, and he is legitimizing this through his candidacy. The bigotry Cain espouses helps foment the aggressive wars that have done more to undermine American freedom in recent decades than anything else.
Rick Santorum’s Crusade Against Freedom
Rick Santorum says he’s in the presidential race to win. In typical campaign-season Republican fashion, he has condemned Obama for having "wrecked our economy, and centralized power in Washington, DC, and robbed people of their freedom."
Of course it is true that Obama has been a disaster for American liberty. It doesn’t take a genius to see this. But one might wonder, what is the alternative Santorum represents?
Santorum’s War Against Contractual Liberty: Central to a free society is the concept of freedom of association. People should be free to disassociate from others as well, for any reason. One application of this principle would be the right of employers (and employees) to end their employment relationship at will – only with the caveat that premature termination in violation of an employment contract be remedied through damages. Certainly, no boss should be forced to hire anyone against his will.
This principle has been eroded severely through Civil Rights and anti-discrimination laws. This is a tragic abandonment of the cornerstone of a free society. But Santorum has proposed, with the support of such Democratic stalwarts as John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Ted Kennedy, to gut this principle even further, by forcing employers to accommodate the religious practices of their workers. This is an egregious attack on economic liberty. It means that a boss would have to make "reasonable" provisions for his employees’ prayers and religious rituals, even if these are at odds with his own values. In a society of religious and contractual liberty, employers wouldn’t have to hire people of any religious persuasion that they didn’t want to, much less subsidize religious practices they did not support. Of course, customers could boycott companies if they found the discrimination or lack of accommodation unfair. But this should be up to free individuals working in the market, never the state.
Santorum’s Attack on the Constitution: Santorum has argued that the federal government should build a wall and use national guards to enforce border security – a usurpation of the proper authority of the states under the Tenth Amendment. He has been an enthusiastic defender of torture, despite the Eighth Amendment, due process rights, and every single standard of human decency. He also voted in support of making warrantless wiretapping easier, in clear violation of the Fourth Amendment; the flag-burning amendment – not actually in violation of the Constitution, but with the opinion, apparently, that the First Amendment needs changing; harsher penalties for drugs, when there is absolutely no authority in the Constitution for the feds to be involved in this at all; draconian penalties for gun violations so long as drugs are involved; federal abstinence education programs, when in fact education is the proper province of the states; a presidential line-item veto, when this is clearly an unconstitutional deprivation of Congress’s legislative authority; the Patriot Act and the evisceration of habeas corpus for detainees in the war on terror. And if you think he only supports cruel measures against those deemed by the government to be "terrorists," keep in mind that this is the man who callously said that victims who didn’t successfully flee New Orleans in the midst of Hurricane Katrina should have been burdened by "tougher penalties."
Santorum’s Battle Against Rationality in Foreign Affairs: Santorum has voted to expand NATO, an outdated Cold War relic; supported stronger sanctions against Syria, Cuba, Iran and even Japan in direct tension with the human right to free trade and the interests of the United States; and backed Clinton’s unconstitutional and unnecessary war with Kosovo, despite the better judgment of many other Republicans. But what else is to be expected from a man so deluded he thought as late as 2006 that Weapons of Mass Destruction were found in Iraq – even as the Bush administration insisted this was not so – and has seriously argued, even in a time when political correctness threatens freedom of inquiry and academic liberty at our universities, that criticism of Israel on college campuses should be federally punished?
Is He Good on Anything? Some will insist that at least Santorum is a fiscal conservative, but he voted for Bush’s deficit-enlarging budgets and does not support abolition of the huge unconstitutional, wasteful and counterproductive federal programs that are drowning this nation in debt – the empire, Social Security, Medicare, and all the rest. He might be marginally less spendthrift than Obama, but wait until you see him in power. He has no compunctions about using the force of the federal government and tax dollars to impose his vision on America – a vision in which employers have to accommodate workers’ religions against their will, a vision in which Washington teaches kids what kind of sexual values to embrace, a vision in which campus criticism of America’s closest Middle East ally is socially engineered out of existence, a vision of social conservatism not nurtured in a humane and virtuous manner by families, churches, and communities, but by the largest political body in the history of the world – the U.S. government. He has no respect for free speech, the Fourth Amendment, or Constitutional limits on the federal police power. Like so many other politicians, he thinks Americans have all too much liberty in many areas, and yet has the temerity to criticize his ideological mirror image, Barack Obama.
Obama has been a nightmare for liberty across the board. So was Bush. If Americans want to finally awake to a future of liberty, they will reject the authoritarian right-wing socialism of Rick Santorum.
Oh No. Another Reagan Republican: Jon Huntsman
Jon Huntsman announced his presidential bid in front of the Statue of Liberty, evoking images of Reagan’s announcement of his own run over three decades ago standing at the same spot. Huntsman, a former Reagan official, reminded his audience that Reagan had "assured us we could ‘make America great again,’ and under his leadership we did."
In 2007, Jon Huntsman openly favored an individual health care mandate – the most directly anti-liberty element to Obamacare. Also as governor of Utah, he signed a global warming initiative agreeing to cut greenhouse gases. Under his stewardship, state spending increased by about 10% a year.
Some will say this means Huntsman is clearly not a real Reagan conservative. Yet Reagan is the president who:
About doubled the size of the federal government
Increased Social Security taxes and the overall tax bite from the American economy
Promised to abolish the Selective Service, the Department of Education, the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Bureau, and did nothing of the sort
As governor, Reagan:
Signed the Mulford Act, banning the carrying of firearms in general terms, setting the stage for California’s modern anti-gun atmosphere
Increased taxes more than any previous governor, including his $1 billion hike in his first year – the largest tax increase in CA history
Immensely expanded the welfare bureaucracy and added over 30,000 employees to the state government payroll
Created 73 new state government councils and commissions, including the horrible California Energy Commission
Oversaw a 122% increase in the state budget
This is the reality of the Reagan legacy. Even as a governor, with no military enemy as an excuse, he acted even worse than the Democratic governors before and after him. And why not? Reagan was a unionist, a Hollywood New Deal Democrat who took on the role of touting free enterprise because he was hired by General Electric to do so. He was a performer who acted his way into the White House, and to this day the Republicans all jump over themselves to claim his mantle, all competing to be described as the most Reaganesque.
Huntsman is indeed a Reagan Republican: a defender of big government who stands in front of the Statue of Liberty without any credibility on what that statue represents.
Tim Pawlenty, Second-Rate Bore for More Government and War
Poor guy. Even given his close relationship to the 2008 John McCain presidential run, Pawlenty has been unable to turn that experience into the credentials needed to run another losing presidential campaign in 2012. He is not the most frightening of the bunch, however, although his dedication to smaller government is par for the course among Republicans. That is to say, he doesn’t have any.
Pawlenty as governor of Minnesota was an enthusiast for public works projects, rail lines, and Target Field, two-thirds of the funding for which was billed to the taxpayers. He is well known for his bill raising the ethanol requirement for gasoline up to 20%. In environmentalist California, the figure is closer to 6%.
Back in March, before Obama committed the United States to yet another anti-Muslim war of aggression, Pawlenty scathingly attacked the administration for being soft on Libya. Condemning the president for caring what other nations thought about American wars, Pawlenty intoned: "What's most important is our nation is secure and respected." Ah. "Respected." So that is the point of these foreign adventures – being treated like the international mob boss. While the other Republicans in the field are now toying with America-First rhetoric concerning this war, Pawlenty has not taken off his campaign website the numerous examples of his being a visionary ahead of the curve, goading the emperor to flex his muscles before Obama himself felt inclined finally to let the bombs drop.
Newt Gingrich the Career Political Outsider
If there is a great silver lining in this election it is that Gingrich is doing so poorly. What a joy to watch him get nowhere, to watch his ego take a beating every day.
Gingrich has boasted that he is not a "Washington figure" and claims that he "will clearly be the most change-oriented, the most fundamental reform candidate in the race." Yes, this from the guy who was recently taken to the woodshed for his comments that Paul Ryan’s ridiculously moderate budget cut proposal was an example of dangerous "right-wing social engineering."
This only demonstrates what is meant these days when someone is called a "Washington outsider." Obama was supposed to be such a candidate, despite his record-busting campaign donations from Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street powerhouses, his unequivocal support for the agenda of AIPAC and other establishment lobbying groups. But even Obama was a better example of an outsider than lifetime government employee John McCain, who laughably ran as a maverick in 2008, defending virtually every element of the Bush regime – the wars, the bailouts, the compassionate conservative welfare statism.
There was a time long before his stint as Speaker of the House when Gingrich was a little bit interesting. In 1982, Newt Gingrich wrote to the Journal of the American Medical Association in defense of medical marijuana. He noted that "Federal law. . . continues to define marijuana as a drug ‘with no accepted medical use,’ and federal agencies continue to prohibit physician-patient access to marijuana. This outdated federal prohibition is corrupting the intent of the state laws and depriving thousands of glaucoma and cancer patients of the medical care promised them by their state legislatures."
Almost 30 years later, is he still asking for a liberalization of federal marijuana law? Quite the reverse. He strongly suggests we need to look at such countries as Singapore for our inspiration on drug policy and does not flinch when it is pointed out that that nation executes drug dealers and issues mandatory drug tests to the general population. These are totalitarian proposals, and Gingrich seems to endorse them emphatically.
Newt’s Contract with America – the Republicans’ literature offering hope and change to the American people – was filled with reforms supposedly aimed at limiting the power of Washington, but much of it had to do with expanding government to crack down on crime or uphold family values. One thing is for certain: the Republican Congress in the 1990s did not cut back government overall. To the contrary, in the 1990s the last federal budget passed by the Republicans was hundreds of billions higher than the last one passed by the Democratic Congress. In some areas, like farm subsidies, spending went up substantially.
The ringleader of the 1990s Republican non-revolution has no hopes, and for this at least we can be grateful.
Sarah Palin: Will the Bulldog with Lipstick Run?
Many have long argued that she would have no chance at the presidency. Only half the Republican voters like her, and none of the Democrats do. Obama is polled to easily defeat her in her own state of Alaska.
Perhaps I am playing into the media zeitgeist by not being a lot more substantive in this discussion. What about Palin’s political positions? Well, she has flip-flopped and equivocated on quite a few questions. But it would be fair to say that she is slightly more fiscally conservative than Obama, in the same ballpark in terms of foreign policy (although with the distinct possibility of surprising us in either direction), and otherwise comfortable with the status quo of bailouts, corporatism, entitlements, huge government, and central management of the economy, with some perfunctory areas where she mildly dissents from the Washington consensus. In other words, she is a typical Republican politician, who might sound a little better than the Democrats when she is out of power, but who always has the potential to prove a neocon in the White House.
Yet it is a mistake to assume the above is the most substantive thing to be said of her. Palin was primarily always a culture-war figure: a rallying point for the heartland to unify and cry out that it had enough of the coastal elitism of the central state and media giants. Yet what were they rebelling against in 2008? Was it the Bush legacy they had voted for? He was, after all, a counterfeit middle American, a Connecticut transplant in the heart of Texas who always advocated big government. The biggest issue to unify the proto-Tea Party uprising of 2008 was, of course, the gigantic Wall Street bailouts, which were advocated and supported by Palin, as well as McCain and Obama. Palin had the problem of running on a ticket calling for hope and change when the Democratic opposition had already trademarked those slogans and was running against the sorry record of her own party’s mismanagement of the economy and two wars. Now the setting is ripe for a run against Obama-style elitist liberalism. The problem is, Palin is a TV star and her own very red state backs the incumbent over her.
There’s lots of talk about whether she can beat Michelle Bachmann. Maybe not. Nevertheless, I still don’t think it’s impossible for her to be president one day, if not in 2013 then down the line. Palin is still very young. She could run every election cycle until 2028 – five elections, inclusive – before she’s any older than Hillary Clinton was in 2008. Think of that. Even if she’s decisively defeated this time, she has plenty of opportunities to make a comeback like Richard Nixon, or Peewee Herman, or Freddy Kreuger, depending on how you regard her.
I for one welcome Palin into the race, as I find her entertaining and somewhat refreshing. My appreciation is nuanced, as I do not think she is any sort of champion of freedom but rather an establishment politician, but it can be fun watching the liberal media stumble over themselves to attack her for cultural reasons, perennially and invincibly clueless that much of the country is on board with her social values. Part of me even wants her to win the White House, not because she will be any better than Obama, necessarily, but because it would serve to educate at least some people. Either the liberals will learn that she is not the devilish threat to their social democracy as they’ve been fearing, or some conservatives will learn that the problem wasn’t Obama but leviathan, or some feminists will learn that a woman in the White House doesn’t mean a more peaceful or less corrupt executive branch any more than a black president means a less predatory criminal justice system. The problem is political power itself, and no modification to the cultural lipstick worn by the empress will mean a damn thing. Perhaps Palin will help bring us closer to the day when Americans recognize that.
The Grand Old Party: A Circus of Fascists, Clowns, and Creeps
As I’ve noted repeatedly here and elsewhere, the Republican Party has always been a party of big government. The exceptions only prove the rule. If any of the above people get the presidential nomination we will again face a contest between two candidates with no reliable respect for the liberal tradition, free trade, peace, freedom of association, civil liberties or free-market capitalism. The bright side is we’ll only be closer to the day when Americans give up on electoral politics as a means to achieve freedom.
Much of this material is adapted from material first published on JohnDennisReport.com. Note this, as well as LewRockwell.com, in any reprints.
July 23, 2011
Anthony Gregory is research editor at the Independent Institute. He lives in Oakland, California. See his webpage for more articles and personal information.
Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Friday, July 22, 2011
The Crack-up Boom! On The Way?
In his book Human Action, Ludwig von Mises wrote, “Continued inflation must finally end in the crack-up boom, the complete breakdown of the currency system." Similarly, we have Voltaire's wisdom, “Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value – zero.” So, Dr. Bernanke, we're not talking about a "tail risk" of this baby coming to term. It's coming. And, when the dust settles, it will be the very opposite of a really, really bad outcome.
One of the most poigniant peices I've read in some time is this little ditty by Arthur M.M. Krolman.
One of the most poigniant peices I've read in some time is this little ditty by Arthur M.M. Krolman.
The Problem With "Civil Service"
"Civil service rules make it prohibitively difficult to fire federal employees for bad performance once they pass their probationary period—one year on the job. Most federal employees who perform poorly never get fired. They keep their jobs unless their supervisor works through an arduous process of exhaustively documenting their performance and working through a complex appeal process." --James Sherk
USA TODAY found that nearly 60% of firings occur in the first two years of employment, mostly workers on probation and outside the federal job protection system. Blue-collar workers are twice as likely to be fired as white-collar employees. The federal government’s 12,700 food preparation workers had the highest rate of getting fired last year — 2.5%.
White-collar federal workers have almost total job security after a few years on the job. Last year, the government fired none of its 3,000 meteorologists, 2,500 health insurance administrators, 1,000 optometrists, 800 historians or 500 industrial property managers.
The nearly half-million federal employees earning $100,000 or more enjoyed a 99.82% job security rate in 2010. Only 27 of 35,000 federal attorneys were fired last year. None was laid off. Death claimed 33.
Read More Here
USA TODAY found that nearly 60% of firings occur in the first two years of employment, mostly workers on probation and outside the federal job protection system. Blue-collar workers are twice as likely to be fired as white-collar employees. The federal government’s 12,700 food preparation workers had the highest rate of getting fired last year — 2.5%.
White-collar federal workers have almost total job security after a few years on the job. Last year, the government fired none of its 3,000 meteorologists, 2,500 health insurance administrators, 1,000 optometrists, 800 historians or 500 industrial property managers.
The nearly half-million federal employees earning $100,000 or more enjoyed a 99.82% job security rate in 2010. Only 27 of 35,000 federal attorneys were fired last year. None was laid off. Death claimed 33.
Read More Here
Virtue vs. Vice
"If you think it's a vice to make a profit, then you should think it's a virtue to make a loss, in which case it's time to question your premises and locate your marbles." - Lawrence W. Reed
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Ron Paul on Republican "Cut, Cap and Balance" Fraud!
Before the US House of Representatives, Statement on the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act, July 19, 2011
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against HR 2560, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act. This bill only serves to sanction the status quo by putting forth a $1 trillion budget deficit and authorizing a $2.4 trillion increase in the debt limit.
When I say this bill sanctions the status quo, I mean it quite literally.
First, it purports to eventually balance the budget without cutting military spending, Social Security, or Medicare. This is impossible. These three budget items already cost nearly $1 trillion apiece annually. This means we can cut every other area of federal spending to zero and still have a $3 trillion budget. Since annual federal tax revenues almost certainly will not exceed $2.5 trillion for several years, this Act cannot balance the budget under any plausible scenario.
Second, it further entrenches the ludicrous beltway concept of discretionary vs. nondiscretionary spending. America faces a fiscal crisis, and we must seize the opportunity once and for all to slay Washington's sacred cows – including defense contractors and entitlements. All spending must be deemed discretionary and reexamined by Congress each year. To allow otherwise is pure cowardice.
Third, the Act applies the nonsensical narrative about a "Global War on Terror" to justify exceptions to its spending caps. Since this war is undeclared, has no definite enemies, no clear objectives, and no metric to determine victory, it is by definition endless. Congress will never balance the budget until we reject the concept of endless wars.
Finally, and most egregiously, this Act ignores the real issue: total spending by government. As Milton Friedman famously argued, what we really need is a constitutional amendment to limit taxes and spending, not simply to balance the budget. What we need is a dramatically smaller federal government; if we achieve this a balanced budget will take care of itself.
We do need to cut spending, and by a significant amount. Going back to 2008 levels of spending is not enough. We need to cut back at least to where spending was a decade ago. A recent news article stated that we pay 35 percent more for our military today than we did 10 years ago, for the exact same capabilities. The same could be said for the rest of the government. Why has our budget doubled in 10 years? This country doesn't have double the population, or double the land area, or double anything that would require the federal government to grow by such an obscene amount.
We need to cap spending, and then continue decreasing that cap so that the federal government grows smaller and smaller. Allowing government to spend up to a certain percentage of GDP is insufficient. It doesn't matter that the recent historical average of government outlays is 18 percent of GDP, because in recent history the government has way overstepped its constitutional mandates. All we need to know about spending caps is that they need to decrease year after year.
We need to balance the budget, but a balanced budget amendment by itself will not do the trick. A $4 trillion balanced budget is most certainly worse than a $2 trillion unbalanced budget. Again, we should focus on the total size of the budget more than outlays vs. revenues.
What we have been asked to do here is support a budget that only cuts relative to the President's proposed budget. It still maintains a $1 trillion budget deficit for FY 2012, and spends even more money over the next 10 years than the Paul Ryan budget which already passed the House.
By capping spending at a certain constant percentage of GDP, it allows for federal spending to continue to grow. Tying spending to GDP creates an incentive to manipulate the GDP figure, especially since the bill delegates the calculation of this figure to the Office of Management and Budget, an agency which is responsible to the President and not to Congress. In the worst case, it would even reward further inflation of the money supply, as increases in nominal GDP through pure inflation would allow for larger federal budgets.
Finally, this bill authorizes a $2.4 trillion rise in the debt limit. I have never voted for a debt ceiling increase and I never will. Increasing the debt ceiling is an endorsement of business as usual in Washington. It delays the inevitable, the day that one day will come when we cannot continue to run up enormous deficits and will be forced to pay our bills.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I sympathize with the aims of this bill's sponsors, I must vote against HR 2560. It is my hope, however, that the looming debt ceiling deadline and the discussion surrounding the budget will further motivate us to consider legislation in the near future that will make meaningful cuts and long-lasting reforms.
-Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican Representative from Texas, currently seeking nomination of the Republican Party for the office of President of The United States.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against HR 2560, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act. This bill only serves to sanction the status quo by putting forth a $1 trillion budget deficit and authorizing a $2.4 trillion increase in the debt limit.
When I say this bill sanctions the status quo, I mean it quite literally.
First, it purports to eventually balance the budget without cutting military spending, Social Security, or Medicare. This is impossible. These three budget items already cost nearly $1 trillion apiece annually. This means we can cut every other area of federal spending to zero and still have a $3 trillion budget. Since annual federal tax revenues almost certainly will not exceed $2.5 trillion for several years, this Act cannot balance the budget under any plausible scenario.
Second, it further entrenches the ludicrous beltway concept of discretionary vs. nondiscretionary spending. America faces a fiscal crisis, and we must seize the opportunity once and for all to slay Washington's sacred cows – including defense contractors and entitlements. All spending must be deemed discretionary and reexamined by Congress each year. To allow otherwise is pure cowardice.
Third, the Act applies the nonsensical narrative about a "Global War on Terror" to justify exceptions to its spending caps. Since this war is undeclared, has no definite enemies, no clear objectives, and no metric to determine victory, it is by definition endless. Congress will never balance the budget until we reject the concept of endless wars.
Finally, and most egregiously, this Act ignores the real issue: total spending by government. As Milton Friedman famously argued, what we really need is a constitutional amendment to limit taxes and spending, not simply to balance the budget. What we need is a dramatically smaller federal government; if we achieve this a balanced budget will take care of itself.
We do need to cut spending, and by a significant amount. Going back to 2008 levels of spending is not enough. We need to cut back at least to where spending was a decade ago. A recent news article stated that we pay 35 percent more for our military today than we did 10 years ago, for the exact same capabilities. The same could be said for the rest of the government. Why has our budget doubled in 10 years? This country doesn't have double the population, or double the land area, or double anything that would require the federal government to grow by such an obscene amount.
We need to cap spending, and then continue decreasing that cap so that the federal government grows smaller and smaller. Allowing government to spend up to a certain percentage of GDP is insufficient. It doesn't matter that the recent historical average of government outlays is 18 percent of GDP, because in recent history the government has way overstepped its constitutional mandates. All we need to know about spending caps is that they need to decrease year after year.
We need to balance the budget, but a balanced budget amendment by itself will not do the trick. A $4 trillion balanced budget is most certainly worse than a $2 trillion unbalanced budget. Again, we should focus on the total size of the budget more than outlays vs. revenues.
What we have been asked to do here is support a budget that only cuts relative to the President's proposed budget. It still maintains a $1 trillion budget deficit for FY 2012, and spends even more money over the next 10 years than the Paul Ryan budget which already passed the House.
By capping spending at a certain constant percentage of GDP, it allows for federal spending to continue to grow. Tying spending to GDP creates an incentive to manipulate the GDP figure, especially since the bill delegates the calculation of this figure to the Office of Management and Budget, an agency which is responsible to the President and not to Congress. In the worst case, it would even reward further inflation of the money supply, as increases in nominal GDP through pure inflation would allow for larger federal budgets.
Finally, this bill authorizes a $2.4 trillion rise in the debt limit. I have never voted for a debt ceiling increase and I never will. Increasing the debt ceiling is an endorsement of business as usual in Washington. It delays the inevitable, the day that one day will come when we cannot continue to run up enormous deficits and will be forced to pay our bills.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I sympathize with the aims of this bill's sponsors, I must vote against HR 2560. It is my hope, however, that the looming debt ceiling deadline and the discussion surrounding the budget will further motivate us to consider legislation in the near future that will make meaningful cuts and long-lasting reforms.
-Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican Representative from Texas, currently seeking nomination of the Republican Party for the office of President of The United States.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Columbo Interviews The President
Ah... Sorry to bother you President Obama, Sir
Excuse me Mr. Obama, I mean President Obama, sir. Uhm... know you are busy and important and stuff. I mean serving as president is very important and . . . ah... I hate to bother you. I will only take a minute okay, sir?
See, I have these missing pieces that are holding me up, and I was wondering sir, if you could take time out of your busy schedule and help me out. You know, no big deal, just some loose ends and things.
Hey, this White House sure is a nice place! The wife sees pictures of this place on TV all the time and says boy she wishes she had digs like this you know? Is that painting real? Really? Wow. I saw something like that in a museum once!
Oh, sorry sir. I didn't mean to get off the track. So if you could just help me out a minute and give me some details, I will get right out of your way. I want to close this case and maybe take the wife to Coney Island or something. Ever been to Coney Island? No, I didn't think so...
Well, listen, anyways, I can't seem to get some information I need to wrap this up. These things seem to either be 'locked' or 'not available'. I'm sure it's just some oversight or glitch or something, so if you could you tell me where these things are... ... ...have them written down here somewhere... oh wait. Sorry about the smears. It was raining out. I'll just read it to you.
Could you help me please find these things, sir?
1. Occidental College records and transcripts -- Not released
2. Columbia University records and transcripts -- Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper -- 'not available'
4. Harvard University records and transcripts -- Not released
5. Selective Service Registration -- Not released
6. Medical records -- Not released
7. Illinois State Senate schedule -- 'not available'
8. Law practice client list -- Not released
9. Written correspondence with B. Ayers, R. Khalidi, E. Said, J. Wright, etc. -- Not released
10. Embossed, signed paper Birth Certificate -- Not released
11. Harvard Law Review articles published -- None
12. University of Chicago scholarly articles -- None
13. Record of Baptism -- Not released or 'not available'
14. Illinois State Senate records -- 'not available'
Oh hey... listen! I know you are busy! Is this too much for you now? I mean tell you what. I will come back tomorrow. Give you some time to get these things together, you know? I mean, I know you are busy, so I will just let myself out. I will be back tomorrow. And the day after...
'Who wants to know these things?' asks President Obama.
The American People, answers Columbo.
Hat Tip- Doug Ross Read more here
Excuse me Mr. Obama, I mean President Obama, sir. Uhm... know you are busy and important and stuff. I mean serving as president is very important and . . . ah... I hate to bother you. I will only take a minute okay, sir?
See, I have these missing pieces that are holding me up, and I was wondering sir, if you could take time out of your busy schedule and help me out. You know, no big deal, just some loose ends and things.
Hey, this White House sure is a nice place! The wife sees pictures of this place on TV all the time and says boy she wishes she had digs like this you know? Is that painting real? Really? Wow. I saw something like that in a museum once!
Oh, sorry sir. I didn't mean to get off the track. So if you could just help me out a minute and give me some details, I will get right out of your way. I want to close this case and maybe take the wife to Coney Island or something. Ever been to Coney Island? No, I didn't think so...
Well, listen, anyways, I can't seem to get some information I need to wrap this up. These things seem to either be 'locked' or 'not available'. I'm sure it's just some oversight or glitch or something, so if you could you tell me where these things are... ... ...have them written down here somewhere... oh wait. Sorry about the smears. It was raining out. I'll just read it to you.
Could you help me please find these things, sir?
1. Occidental College records and transcripts -- Not released
2. Columbia University records and transcripts -- Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper -- 'not available'
4. Harvard University records and transcripts -- Not released
5. Selective Service Registration -- Not released
6. Medical records -- Not released
7. Illinois State Senate schedule -- 'not available'
8. Law practice client list -- Not released
9. Written correspondence with B. Ayers, R. Khalidi, E. Said, J. Wright, etc. -- Not released
10. Embossed, signed paper Birth Certificate -- Not released
11. Harvard Law Review articles published -- None
12. University of Chicago scholarly articles -- None
13. Record of Baptism -- Not released or 'not available'
14. Illinois State Senate records -- 'not available'
Oh hey... listen! I know you are busy! Is this too much for you now? I mean tell you what. I will come back tomorrow. Give you some time to get these things together, you know? I mean, I know you are busy, so I will just let myself out. I will be back tomorrow. And the day after...
'Who wants to know these things?' asks President Obama.
The American People, answers Columbo.
Hat Tip- Doug Ross Read more here
Monday, July 18, 2011
Deficit and Debt are not equal
When you watch this video, keep in mind that deficits do not equal debt. Debt and interest on that debt will be the ruin of the USA.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Obama's Fiscal Record - The actual record.
A Brief History of President Obama’s Fiscal Record
Setting the Record Straight
July 15, 2011
Despite newfound concern with the debt overhang stifling economic growth, President Obama’s record falls far short of his rhetoric. Let’s review the decisions made by President Obama and Congressional Democrats over the past couple of years, and the disappointing results of their policy choices:
January 20, 2009
President Obama sworn into office
•President tells the American people in his Inaugural Address: “Those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.”
•Debt Held By Public = $6.31 trillion
February 17, 2009
President Signs into Law the Spending Stimulus
•The stimulus adds $821 billion in new spending according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
•The White House promises this infusion of spending and borrowing would keep unemployment rate below 8%. As millions of Americans are painfully aware, that promise was broken.
•Debt Held by Public = $6.48 trillion
February 26, 2009
President Issues FY2010 Budget
•The President’s budget adds $2.7 trillion in new debt in FY2010 and imposes $1.4 trillion in new taxes.
•Debt Held by Public = $6.58 trillion
March 11, 2009
President Signs FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act
•The massive spending bill includes 8,696 earmarks at a cost of $11 billion.
•The spending bill adds $19 billion in new spending above the baseline – an 8.6% spending increase.
•Debt Held by Public = $6.66 trillion
April 29, 2009
Congressional Democrats Pass FY2010 Budget
•The Congressional Democrats’ budget calls for a $2 trillion debt increase in 2010, and another 8.9% increase in non-defense discretionary spending.
•The reconciliation process is abused to later pave the way for health care overhaul to be jammed into law.
•Of note: this is the last time Congressional Democrats will bother budgeting.
•Debt Held by Public = $6.85 trillion
February 2, 2010
President Issues FY2011 Budget
•The President’s budget more than doubles the debt; pushes the FY2011 deficit to a new record of $1.6 trillion; drives spending to a new record of $3.8 trillion in fiscal year 2011; and raises taxes by more than $2 trillion through 2020, under the administration’s own estimates.
•Debt Held by Public = $7.85 trillion
March 23, 2010
President Signs Health-Care Overhaul Into Law
•The massive new law adds $1.4 trillion in new spending over the next decade, and over $2.5 trillion once the law is fully implemented.
•Despite sluggish economic growth and high unemployment, the law imposes over $500 billion in new tax hikes. CBO Director Elmendorf would later testify that the law would reduce employment by roughly half a percent – a reduction of approximately 800,000 jobs.
•Debt Held by Public = $8.18 trillion
April 15, 2010
Congressional Democrats Decide Not to Do a Budget for FY2011
•The 1974 Budget Act requires Congress to pass a budget each year by April 15.
•In an unprecedented budget failure, House Democrats not only failed to pass a budget – they opted to not even propose a budget.
•Debt Held by Public = $8.39 trillion
July 21, 2010
President Signs Financial Regulatory Overhaul Into Law
•In addition to heightened regulatory uncertainty, the massive new law adds $10.2 billion in new spending.
•Debt Held by Public = $8.69 trillion
February 14, 2011
President Issues FY2012 Budget
•The President’s budget yet again calls for the doubling of the debt in five years, and tripling the debt in ten years.
•The President’s budget spends $47 trillion over the next decade, imposes over $1 trillion in new tax hikes, and fails to address the drivers of the debt.
•Debt Held by Public = $9.45 trillion
April 13, 2011
President Delivers Speech on Deficit Reduction
•The President appears to abandon his own budget by offering a ‘framework’ that calls for additional tax increases, defense spending cuts, and Medicare price controls – yet lacks sufficient detail to back-up claims of deficit reduction.
•Debt Held by Public = $9.65 trillion
April 15, 2011
House Passes FY2012 Budget Resolution
•The House-passed budget cuts $6.2 trillion in government spending over the next decade, saves Medicare, strengthens the social safety net, lifts the crushing burden of debt, and spurs economic growth and job creation.
•Senate Democrats fail to meet their legal requirement to pass a budget by April 15.
•Debt Held by Public = $9.68 trillion
April 18, 2011
S&P Issues Credit Warning on U.S. Debt
•The rating agency sets off the latest alarm bells, warning of lawmakers of unsustainable fiscal course.
•President Obama has still not proposed a credible budget; Senate Democrats have still not proposed any budget.
•Debt Held by Public = $9.68 trillion
May 13, 2011
Medicare and Social Security Trustees Issue Warning of Looming Insolvency
•According to the programs’ own trustees, the unsustainable future of Medicare and Social Security threatens the health and retirement security of America’s seniors.
•President Obama and Congressional Democrats continue to engage in a partisan campaign to attack efforts to save and strengthen these critical programs – while offering no serious solutions of their own.
•Debt Held by Public = $9.67 trillion
May 25, 2011
Senate Unanimously Rejects President’s FY2012 Budget; Vote is 97-0
•While the President’s plan to accelerate our nation toward bankruptcy is unanimously rejected, the stunt on the Senate floor reveals the bankruptcy of Senate Democrats’ ideas.
•Senate Democrats have still not proposed any budget.
•Debt Held by Public = $9.72 trillion
June 23, 2011
CBO Director Further Discredits President’s Fiscal Record
•In testimony before the House Budget Committee, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf responds to questions on the President’s ‘Framework’: “We don’t estimate speeches. We need much more specificity than was provided in that speech for us to do our analysis.”
•Debt Held by Public = $9.74 trillion
July 8, 2011
Unemployment Hits 9.2%; Day 800 Since Senate Democrats Last Passed A Budget
•A devastating jobs report that shows the unemployment rate at 9.2% coincides with the 800th day since Senate Democrats last thought the federal government needed a budget.
•Debt Held by Public = $9.75 trillion
July 11, 2011
Senator Conrad Gives Budget Speech on Senate Floor
•On Day 803 since the Senate last passed a budget, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad takes to the Senate floor to deliver a speech about the Senate Democrats’ non-existent budget resolution.
•Senator Conrad makes the case for imposing over $2 trillion in new taxes, but provides no actual budget resolution and no credible details.
•Debt held by Public = $9.75 trillion
July 15, 2011
President Holds Press Conference: “We’re Running Out of Time” to Deal with Debt
•President Obama tells reporters: “I've got reams of paper and printouts and spreadsheets on my desk, and so we know how we can create a package that solves the deficits and debt for a significant period of time. But in order to do that, we got to get started now.”
•The American people have still not seen any “paper” or “printouts” of what specific spending cuts the President supports. The American people have still not seen any “spreadsheets” from the White House to corroborate their claims of having offered a deficit reduction plan.
•While it’s long past time for Washington “to get started now” on tackling our debt problems, President Obama has still not proposed a credible budget, and Senate Democrats have still not proposed any budget.
•Debt Held by Public = $9.75 trillion
source - Rep. Paul Ryan, Chairman
Committee on the Budget: U.S. House of Representatives 207 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
Setting the Record Straight
July 15, 2011
Despite newfound concern with the debt overhang stifling economic growth, President Obama’s record falls far short of his rhetoric. Let’s review the decisions made by President Obama and Congressional Democrats over the past couple of years, and the disappointing results of their policy choices:
January 20, 2009
President Obama sworn into office
•President tells the American people in his Inaugural Address: “Those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.”
•Debt Held By Public = $6.31 trillion
February 17, 2009
President Signs into Law the Spending Stimulus
•The stimulus adds $821 billion in new spending according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
•The White House promises this infusion of spending and borrowing would keep unemployment rate below 8%. As millions of Americans are painfully aware, that promise was broken.
•Debt Held by Public = $6.48 trillion
February 26, 2009
President Issues FY2010 Budget
•The President’s budget adds $2.7 trillion in new debt in FY2010 and imposes $1.4 trillion in new taxes.
•Debt Held by Public = $6.58 trillion
March 11, 2009
President Signs FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act
•The massive spending bill includes 8,696 earmarks at a cost of $11 billion.
•The spending bill adds $19 billion in new spending above the baseline – an 8.6% spending increase.
•Debt Held by Public = $6.66 trillion
April 29, 2009
Congressional Democrats Pass FY2010 Budget
•The Congressional Democrats’ budget calls for a $2 trillion debt increase in 2010, and another 8.9% increase in non-defense discretionary spending.
•The reconciliation process is abused to later pave the way for health care overhaul to be jammed into law.
•Of note: this is the last time Congressional Democrats will bother budgeting.
•Debt Held by Public = $6.85 trillion
February 2, 2010
President Issues FY2011 Budget
•The President’s budget more than doubles the debt; pushes the FY2011 deficit to a new record of $1.6 trillion; drives spending to a new record of $3.8 trillion in fiscal year 2011; and raises taxes by more than $2 trillion through 2020, under the administration’s own estimates.
•Debt Held by Public = $7.85 trillion
March 23, 2010
President Signs Health-Care Overhaul Into Law
•The massive new law adds $1.4 trillion in new spending over the next decade, and over $2.5 trillion once the law is fully implemented.
•Despite sluggish economic growth and high unemployment, the law imposes over $500 billion in new tax hikes. CBO Director Elmendorf would later testify that the law would reduce employment by roughly half a percent – a reduction of approximately 800,000 jobs.
•Debt Held by Public = $8.18 trillion
April 15, 2010
Congressional Democrats Decide Not to Do a Budget for FY2011
•The 1974 Budget Act requires Congress to pass a budget each year by April 15.
•In an unprecedented budget failure, House Democrats not only failed to pass a budget – they opted to not even propose a budget.
•Debt Held by Public = $8.39 trillion
July 21, 2010
President Signs Financial Regulatory Overhaul Into Law
•In addition to heightened regulatory uncertainty, the massive new law adds $10.2 billion in new spending.
•Debt Held by Public = $8.69 trillion
February 14, 2011
President Issues FY2012 Budget
•The President’s budget yet again calls for the doubling of the debt in five years, and tripling the debt in ten years.
•The President’s budget spends $47 trillion over the next decade, imposes over $1 trillion in new tax hikes, and fails to address the drivers of the debt.
•Debt Held by Public = $9.45 trillion
April 13, 2011
President Delivers Speech on Deficit Reduction
•The President appears to abandon his own budget by offering a ‘framework’ that calls for additional tax increases, defense spending cuts, and Medicare price controls – yet lacks sufficient detail to back-up claims of deficit reduction.
•Debt Held by Public = $9.65 trillion
April 15, 2011
House Passes FY2012 Budget Resolution
•The House-passed budget cuts $6.2 trillion in government spending over the next decade, saves Medicare, strengthens the social safety net, lifts the crushing burden of debt, and spurs economic growth and job creation.
•Senate Democrats fail to meet their legal requirement to pass a budget by April 15.
•Debt Held by Public = $9.68 trillion
April 18, 2011
S&P Issues Credit Warning on U.S. Debt
•The rating agency sets off the latest alarm bells, warning of lawmakers of unsustainable fiscal course.
•President Obama has still not proposed a credible budget; Senate Democrats have still not proposed any budget.
•Debt Held by Public = $9.68 trillion
May 13, 2011
Medicare and Social Security Trustees Issue Warning of Looming Insolvency
•According to the programs’ own trustees, the unsustainable future of Medicare and Social Security threatens the health and retirement security of America’s seniors.
•President Obama and Congressional Democrats continue to engage in a partisan campaign to attack efforts to save and strengthen these critical programs – while offering no serious solutions of their own.
•Debt Held by Public = $9.67 trillion
May 25, 2011
Senate Unanimously Rejects President’s FY2012 Budget; Vote is 97-0
•While the President’s plan to accelerate our nation toward bankruptcy is unanimously rejected, the stunt on the Senate floor reveals the bankruptcy of Senate Democrats’ ideas.
•Senate Democrats have still not proposed any budget.
•Debt Held by Public = $9.72 trillion
June 23, 2011
CBO Director Further Discredits President’s Fiscal Record
•In testimony before the House Budget Committee, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf responds to questions on the President’s ‘Framework’: “We don’t estimate speeches. We need much more specificity than was provided in that speech for us to do our analysis.”
•Debt Held by Public = $9.74 trillion
July 8, 2011
Unemployment Hits 9.2%; Day 800 Since Senate Democrats Last Passed A Budget
•A devastating jobs report that shows the unemployment rate at 9.2% coincides with the 800th day since Senate Democrats last thought the federal government needed a budget.
•Debt Held by Public = $9.75 trillion
July 11, 2011
Senator Conrad Gives Budget Speech on Senate Floor
•On Day 803 since the Senate last passed a budget, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad takes to the Senate floor to deliver a speech about the Senate Democrats’ non-existent budget resolution.
•Senator Conrad makes the case for imposing over $2 trillion in new taxes, but provides no actual budget resolution and no credible details.
•Debt held by Public = $9.75 trillion
July 15, 2011
President Holds Press Conference: “We’re Running Out of Time” to Deal with Debt
•President Obama tells reporters: “I've got reams of paper and printouts and spreadsheets on my desk, and so we know how we can create a package that solves the deficits and debt for a significant period of time. But in order to do that, we got to get started now.”
•The American people have still not seen any “paper” or “printouts” of what specific spending cuts the President supports. The American people have still not seen any “spreadsheets” from the White House to corroborate their claims of having offered a deficit reduction plan.
•While it’s long past time for Washington “to get started now” on tackling our debt problems, President Obama has still not proposed a credible budget, and Senate Democrats have still not proposed any budget.
•Debt Held by Public = $9.75 trillion
source - Rep. Paul Ryan, Chairman
Committee on the Budget: U.S. House of Representatives 207 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
Friday, July 15, 2011
Ama-gi
The ancient Sumerian Cuneiform, Ama-gi is a word expressing the manumission of slaves. Literally translated, it means "return to the mother," inasmuch as former slaves were "returned to their mothers, (i.e., freed). It is believed to be the first written expression of the concept of liberty.Happy weekend!
Dennis Kucinich - Political Theater and The Debt Ceiling
The rancorous debate over the debt belies a fundamental truth of our economy -- that it is run for the few at the expense of the many, that our entire government has been turned into a machine which takes the wealth of a mass of Americans and accelerates it into the hands of the few. Let me give you some examples.
Take war. War takes the money from the American people and puts it into the hands of arms manufacturers, war profiteers, and private armies. The war in Iraq, based on lies: $3 trillion will be the cost of that war. The war in Afghanistan; based on a misreading of history; half a trillion dollars in expenses already. The war against Libya will be $1 billion by September.
Fifty percent of our discretionary spending goes for the Pentagon. A massive transfer of wealth into the hands of a few while the American people lack sufficient jobs, health care, housing, retirement security.
Our energy policies take the wealth from the American people and put it into the hands of the oil companies. We could be looking at $150 a barrel for oil in the near future.
Our environmental policy takes the wealth of the people -- clean air, clean water -- and puts it in the hands of the polluters. It's a transfer of wealth, not only from the present but from future generations as our environment is ruined.
Insurance companies, what do they do? They take the wealth from the American people in terms of what they charge people for health insurance and they put it into the hands of the few.
We have to realize what this country's economy has become. Our monetary policy, through the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, privatized the money supply, gathers the wealth, puts it in the hands of the few while the Federal Reserve can create money out of nothing, give it to banks to park at the Fed while our small businesses are starving for capital.
Mark my words -- Wall Street cashes in whether we have a default or not. And the same type of thinking that created billions in bailouts for Wall Street and more than $1 trillion in giveaways by the Federal Reserve today leaves 26 million Americans either underemployed or unemployed. And nine out of ten Americans over the age of 65 are facing cuts in their Social Security in order to pay for a debt which grew from tax cuts for the rich and for endless wars.
There is a massive transfer of wealth from the American people to the hands of a few and it's going on right now as America's eyes are misdirected to the political theater of these histrionic debt negotiations, threats to shut down the government, and willingness to make the most Americans pay dearly for debts they did not create.
These are symptoms of a government which has lost its way, and they are a challenge to the legitimacy of the two-party system.
Dennis Kucinich is US Congressman from Ohio and a former presidential candidate in the United States, originally published at www.commondreams.org
Take war. War takes the money from the American people and puts it into the hands of arms manufacturers, war profiteers, and private armies. The war in Iraq, based on lies: $3 trillion will be the cost of that war. The war in Afghanistan; based on a misreading of history; half a trillion dollars in expenses already. The war against Libya will be $1 billion by September.
Fifty percent of our discretionary spending goes for the Pentagon. A massive transfer of wealth into the hands of a few while the American people lack sufficient jobs, health care, housing, retirement security.
Our energy policies take the wealth from the American people and put it into the hands of the oil companies. We could be looking at $150 a barrel for oil in the near future.
Our environmental policy takes the wealth of the people -- clean air, clean water -- and puts it in the hands of the polluters. It's a transfer of wealth, not only from the present but from future generations as our environment is ruined.
Insurance companies, what do they do? They take the wealth from the American people in terms of what they charge people for health insurance and they put it into the hands of the few.
We have to realize what this country's economy has become. Our monetary policy, through the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, privatized the money supply, gathers the wealth, puts it in the hands of the few while the Federal Reserve can create money out of nothing, give it to banks to park at the Fed while our small businesses are starving for capital.
Mark my words -- Wall Street cashes in whether we have a default or not. And the same type of thinking that created billions in bailouts for Wall Street and more than $1 trillion in giveaways by the Federal Reserve today leaves 26 million Americans either underemployed or unemployed. And nine out of ten Americans over the age of 65 are facing cuts in their Social Security in order to pay for a debt which grew from tax cuts for the rich and for endless wars.
There is a massive transfer of wealth from the American people to the hands of a few and it's going on right now as America's eyes are misdirected to the political theater of these histrionic debt negotiations, threats to shut down the government, and willingness to make the most Americans pay dearly for debts they did not create.
These are symptoms of a government which has lost its way, and they are a challenge to the legitimacy of the two-party system.
Dennis Kucinich is US Congressman from Ohio and a former presidential candidate in the United States, originally published at www.commondreams.org
More Government Incompetence - ICE Agent Leaves Gun In Bathroom
Houston police and federal officials are looking into how a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer left his gun inside a restroom at Bush Intercontinental Airport.
An airport cleaning crew found the Sig Sauer pistol about 9:10 p.m. Wednesday inside the restroom, located in a secure area of Terminal E, and they notified security officers, Houston police spokesman Kese Smith said.
As Houston police were investigating the incident, the ICE officer approached and said he had left his gun in the restroom, Smith said. After he showed his identification, the Houston police officers returned the weapon to him.
The incident is under investigation by both the Houston Police Department and ICE Internal Affairs, Smith said.
Attempts to reach an ICE official for comment late Thursday were unsuccessful
Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7654280.html#ixzz1SBPPtSo8
An airport cleaning crew found the Sig Sauer pistol about 9:10 p.m. Wednesday inside the restroom, located in a secure area of Terminal E, and they notified security officers, Houston police spokesman Kese Smith said.
As Houston police were investigating the incident, the ICE officer approached and said he had left his gun in the restroom, Smith said. After he showed his identification, the Houston police officers returned the weapon to him.
The incident is under investigation by both the Houston Police Department and ICE Internal Affairs, Smith said.
Attempts to reach an ICE official for comment late Thursday were unsuccessful
Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7654280.html#ixzz1SBPPtSo8
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Rick Perry - Democrat and Republican - Statist! Globalist!
Rick Perry, then a State Representative, conferred with his fellow Democrats, Pete Laney and Robert Saunders, on the House floor in 1985.
No one believed it two weeks ago when I told them Texas Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) was nothing more than a big ole statist, used to be Democrat, now a Republican Party darling, and if the political winds turn back to the Left, he'll be a Democrat again.
Now even the New York Times is reporting on his drifting back and forth.
You Republicans out there, don't be fooled by this "shape shifter"! He will sell you folks down the river faster than Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who recently suggested giving dictatorial powers to President Obama (Globalist - IL) by pissing on Article 1, Sections 7 & 8 and allowing all fiscal controls to move to the Executive Branch!
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Ron Paul Eats Bernanke's Lunch.
Apparently The Benbernank has read neither the Constitution of These United States of America, nor The Coinage Act of 1792, both of which explicitly spell out that Gold and Silver are in fact, not only Money, but The ONLY Money to be used by the USA.
Read what Forbes had to say about it below:
"Chairman Ben Bernanke faced-off with Fed-hating Representative Ron Paul during his monetary policy report to Congress on Wednesday. The head of the Fed was forced to respond to accusations of enriching already rich corporations while failing to help Main Street, while he was pushed on his views on gold. “Gold isn’t money,” Bernanke said.
While most of Bernanke’s reports to Congress serve politicians to pursue their own agendas by gearing the Chairman towards their issues, with Republican Rep. Bacchus talking of the unsustainability of Medicaid and Rep. Frank (D, Mass.) asking about the need to raise the debt limit without cutting spending, it was a stand-off between Bernanke and Ron Paul that took all the attention. ( Apocalyptic Bernanke: Raise The Debt Ceiling Or Else).
Rep. Ron Paul, Republican for Texas, asked Bernanke why a capital injection of more than $5 trillion “hasn’t done much” to help the consumer, who makes up about two-thirds of GDP in the U.S., and prop up the economy, while it helped boost corporate profits. “You could’ve given $17,000 to each citizen,” Ron Paul claimed.
Bernanke, clearly on the defensive, told Rep. Ron Paul that his institution hadn’t spent a single dollar, rather, the Fed has been a “profit center” according to the Chairman, returning profits to the federal government. As Bernanke began to sermon Rep. Paul on the history of the Fed (“we are here to provide liquidity [in abnormal situations],” the Chairman said), he was interrupted.
“When you wake up in the morning, do you think about the price of gold,” Rep. Paul asked. After pausing for a second, Bernanke responded, clearly uncomfortable. that he paid much attention to the price of gold, only to be interrupted once again.
“Gold’s at about $1,580 [an ounce] this morning, what do you think of the price of gold?” asked Rep. Paul. A stern-faced Bernanke responded people bought it for protection and was once again cut-off, with Ron Paul once again on the offensive.
“Is gold money?” he asked. Clearly bothered, Bernanke told the representative “no, gold is not money, it’s an asset. Treasuries are an asset, people hold them, but I don’t think of them as money,” said Bernanke.
Rep. Ron Paul again jumped in, noting the long history of gold being used as money, and then asked Bernanke why people didn’t hold diamonds, clearly hinting at his fiat money criticism of the U.S. monetary system. The Fed Chairman told Rep. Paul it was nothing more than tradition, and, as he was attempting to develop his argument, Rep. Ron Paul quickly asked the acting authority of the House of Representative’s Committee on Financial Services, Rep. Bacchus, to excuse him for exceeding his time, as he returned the floor to the Committee.
The interesting exchange served as one of the few times Bernanke has been publicly pushed off his comfort zone by an elected official. Rep. Ron Paul brought up the issues that he’s famous for, namely, a sort of allegiance between the Fed and the nation’s most powerful institutions, the illusion of fiat money, and the gold standard. Bernanke, angered and bothered, had no option but to respond."
Take no prisoners and expect no quarter, Dr. Paul! Huzzah!
Read what Forbes had to say about it below:
"Chairman Ben Bernanke faced-off with Fed-hating Representative Ron Paul during his monetary policy report to Congress on Wednesday. The head of the Fed was forced to respond to accusations of enriching already rich corporations while failing to help Main Street, while he was pushed on his views on gold. “Gold isn’t money,” Bernanke said.
While most of Bernanke’s reports to Congress serve politicians to pursue their own agendas by gearing the Chairman towards their issues, with Republican Rep. Bacchus talking of the unsustainability of Medicaid and Rep. Frank (D, Mass.) asking about the need to raise the debt limit without cutting spending, it was a stand-off between Bernanke and Ron Paul that took all the attention. ( Apocalyptic Bernanke: Raise The Debt Ceiling Or Else).
Rep. Ron Paul, Republican for Texas, asked Bernanke why a capital injection of more than $5 trillion “hasn’t done much” to help the consumer, who makes up about two-thirds of GDP in the U.S., and prop up the economy, while it helped boost corporate profits. “You could’ve given $17,000 to each citizen,” Ron Paul claimed.
Bernanke, clearly on the defensive, told Rep. Ron Paul that his institution hadn’t spent a single dollar, rather, the Fed has been a “profit center” according to the Chairman, returning profits to the federal government. As Bernanke began to sermon Rep. Paul on the history of the Fed (“we are here to provide liquidity [in abnormal situations],” the Chairman said), he was interrupted.
“When you wake up in the morning, do you think about the price of gold,” Rep. Paul asked. After pausing for a second, Bernanke responded, clearly uncomfortable. that he paid much attention to the price of gold, only to be interrupted once again.
“Gold’s at about $1,580 [an ounce] this morning, what do you think of the price of gold?” asked Rep. Paul. A stern-faced Bernanke responded people bought it for protection and was once again cut-off, with Ron Paul once again on the offensive.
“Is gold money?” he asked. Clearly bothered, Bernanke told the representative “no, gold is not money, it’s an asset. Treasuries are an asset, people hold them, but I don’t think of them as money,” said Bernanke.
Rep. Ron Paul again jumped in, noting the long history of gold being used as money, and then asked Bernanke why people didn’t hold diamonds, clearly hinting at his fiat money criticism of the U.S. monetary system. The Fed Chairman told Rep. Paul it was nothing more than tradition, and, as he was attempting to develop his argument, Rep. Ron Paul quickly asked the acting authority of the House of Representative’s Committee on Financial Services, Rep. Bacchus, to excuse him for exceeding his time, as he returned the floor to the Committee.
The interesting exchange served as one of the few times Bernanke has been publicly pushed off his comfort zone by an elected official. Rep. Ron Paul brought up the issues that he’s famous for, namely, a sort of allegiance between the Fed and the nation’s most powerful institutions, the illusion of fiat money, and the gold standard. Bernanke, angered and bothered, had no option but to respond."
Take no prisoners and expect no quarter, Dr. Paul! Huzzah!
Ron Paul Warns GOP On Debt Deal, Predicts Bankruptcy
July 13, 2011 by Personal Liberty News Desk
Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas) has predicted that the United States will endure a bankruptcy.
“I am very hopeful and positive in the long run, but I think we are going to go through a bankruptcy first,” the Congressman told Fox News. “Everything we have done so far has just spent more and run up the deficit.”
Lawmakers are currently attempting to reach a compromise on the debt ceiling. Republicans have said that if the debt ceiling is to be raised then equal cuts to spending must be made. Democrats have insisted that tax hikes be a part of any plan. Paul has warned that the GOP should be cautious about making a deal with the Democrats.
“In fact, reports are they may be ready to cave in to Barack Obama’s demands for a trillion dollars in tax increases in exchange for mostly phony spending and tax cuts in order to raise the debt ceiling,” the Presidential hopeful said in a statement. “In Washington, if you hear about a so-called deal, you can be sure the taxes will come, but the cuts never will. Republicans cannot take the bait and get fooled again.”
Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas) has predicted that the United States will endure a bankruptcy.
“I am very hopeful and positive in the long run, but I think we are going to go through a bankruptcy first,” the Congressman told Fox News. “Everything we have done so far has just spent more and run up the deficit.”
Lawmakers are currently attempting to reach a compromise on the debt ceiling. Republicans have said that if the debt ceiling is to be raised then equal cuts to spending must be made. Democrats have insisted that tax hikes be a part of any plan. Paul has warned that the GOP should be cautious about making a deal with the Democrats.
“In fact, reports are they may be ready to cave in to Barack Obama’s demands for a trillion dollars in tax increases in exchange for mostly phony spending and tax cuts in order to raise the debt ceiling,” the Presidential hopeful said in a statement. “In Washington, if you hear about a so-called deal, you can be sure the taxes will come, but the cuts never will. Republicans cannot take the bait and get fooled again.”
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
A Bold Step Towards Dictatorship
As reported today in the Wall Street Journal, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) proves once again that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Big Government Democrats and Big Government Republicans. Mr. McConnell would love to settle the Debt Ceiling and Spending problems by simply breaking from the Constitution and giving the purse to Obama.
"In one sign that top leaders worry they won't reach a deal in time, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) unveiled a new proposal that would allow President Barack Obama to raise on his own the federal borrowing limit by $2.4 trillion in three installments before the end of 2012, unless two-thirds of Congress votes to block it. " - WSJ.
I think that would be the final "Nail In The Coffin Of The Republic"
We, as Americans, need to stand up now and draw a line in the sand. This is not a Left/Right issue, it's not a Liberal/Conservative issue. This is an American problem. We must force Congress and The President to abide by the Enumerated Powers of The Constitution of These United States. And we must do it now.
"In one sign that top leaders worry they won't reach a deal in time, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) unveiled a new proposal that would allow President Barack Obama to raise on his own the federal borrowing limit by $2.4 trillion in three installments before the end of 2012, unless two-thirds of Congress votes to block it. " - WSJ.
I think that would be the final "Nail In The Coffin Of The Republic"
We, as Americans, need to stand up now and draw a line in the sand. This is not a Left/Right issue, it's not a Liberal/Conservative issue. This is an American problem. We must force Congress and The President to abide by the Enumerated Powers of The Constitution of These United States. And we must do it now.
Monday, July 11, 2011
When the time comes, will the government let you leave?
This is a subject of conversation at the Bitter Patriot household on a regular basis. Tyranny is upon us and for those of us who would rather take our chances, be an individual and "Ex-Pat our happy asses outta here" than live under the thumb of an undeclared dictator, the door may be closing and not re-open.
It may be ancient history to some of you, but until the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, it was nearly impossible to leave any of the countries behind the "Iron Curtain". If you wanted a better life for yourself and your family, you had to find a way to ESCAPE, and by escape I mean literally escape under threat of death or imprisonment. You see, those that live under tyranny are, in essence, slaves to the tyrant. Maybe not in the way that brings up images of 19th century America, but certainly as a tax and debt slave. The only way the government can ever pay off it's debts is through the fruits of your labor. If you leave, they are finished. So, do you think you will be able to, when the time comes? I kind of doubt it.
On that happy note, here is what Simon Black at The Sovereign Man had to say about it today:
Can you imagine being trapped inside your home country, unable to leave? It may be closer to a reality than you realize. I'll tell you a quick story to explain.
This weekend I rented a car in Bulgaria with the aim of driving through Serbia, Kosovo, Macedonia, and eventually into Greece. Now, I'm no virgin to land border crossings in the developing world and understand the corruption and incompetence that typifies customs checkpoints. But this weekend's experience was much more.
With documents in hand, I drove to my first border crossing in Strezimirovci, Bulgaria. After clearing customs on the Bulgarian side, the Serbian officers decided that they would not allow me to enter with the normal papers, and instead required that I obtain another customs form to proceed.
Unfortunately, they had no such customs form at their station, so they turned me around and sent me to another border check point in Kalotina, over an hour away.
The road from Strezimirovci to Kalotina skirts the Serbian border for a large part of the drive-- quite literally, on one side of the road is Serbia, and on the other is Bulgaria. It's all part of the same landscape with no discernable difference... these are just invisible lines guarded by gun-toting monkeys.
When I arrived to Kalotina, I found the 'office' where I was supposed to obtain the new document-- just a simple, roadside concession stand. The 'agent' was the shop's proprietor, a chain-smoking Serbian woman with rather mannish features.
Once I paid the appropriate fee, she spent the next 10 minutes hacking at her keyboard to produce an official looking Cyrillic document with lots of stamps and seals.
While I was waiting for her to finish, four different customers came into the shop to stock up on snacks and drinks. All they wanted was a cold one for the road, but they eventually got tired of waiting and left.
These four customers represented potential transactions that could have contributed something to the economy. Instead, though, they were preempted by an unnecessary bureaucracy that adds absolutely no value whatsoever.
As expected, the Serbian customs agent barely glanced at the form when I crossed the border this time. Finally on Serbian soil, I pointed my car towards Pristina.
Now, Serbia still pretends like Kosovo is part of its sovereign territory, and Serbian police are under strict instructions to make the immigration checkpoint on the Kosovo border as painful as possible.
The vehicle line at the checkpoint was backed up so much that it took several hours to pass. All along the way, there was not a single bathroom, vending machine, fuel station, or even street light. It's obvious that they want to incovenience travelers to the point that people will think twice before visiting Kosovo again.
When it was finally my turn, I drove up to the policeman and handed him all of my papers. He slowly went through every single detail, looking for any technicality he could find to prevent me from crossing.
The rest the station was staffed with 10 other agents. All brandished automatic weapons slung over their backs, yet each stood around doing absolutely nothing. One person was "working," and the other ten were smoking, eating, drinking, and shooting the breeze.
Frankly, I pity all of these border agents whose only function is to deny, obstruct, or otherwise frustrate the forward progress of other human beings. These people will go their entire careers contributing nothing of value to the world, and destroying what others are trying to create. It's truly a pitiful existence.
This weekend's affair was a clear example of what happens when a government imposes mind-numbing bureacracy to prevent freedom of movement. And if you think it can't happen where you live, think again.
In the US, the government now requires all citizens to have a passport in order to pass the border, even when driving into Mexico or Canada. Obtaining a passport, however, is neither free nor guaranteed. You must apply, pay an ever-increasing fee, and wait for weeks to be approved and receive it.
Recently, the State Department quietly proposed a new 'biographical questionnaire' in lieu of the traditional passport application. The new form requires you to provide things like:
- names, birth places, and birth dates of your extended family members
- your mother's place of employment at the time of your birth
- whether or not your mother received pre-natal or post natal care
- the address of your mother's physician and dates of appointments
- the address of every place you have ever lived in your entire life
- the name and address of every school you have ever attended
Most people would find it impossible to provide such information, yet the form requires that the responses 'are true and correct' under penalty of imprisonment.
Naturally, the privacy statement on the application also acknowledges that the responses can be shared with other departments in the government, including Homeland Security.
If this proposal passes, then US citizens will have a nearly insurmountable hurdle to obtain a passport and be able to leave the country at will. Even if it doesn't pass, it's a clear demonstration of what the people who run the country are thinking.
If you haven't done so yet, you should sign up for Simon's Notes From The Field
Have you reached your breaking point yet, comrades? Let me know what you think.
It may be ancient history to some of you, but until the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, it was nearly impossible to leave any of the countries behind the "Iron Curtain". If you wanted a better life for yourself and your family, you had to find a way to ESCAPE, and by escape I mean literally escape under threat of death or imprisonment. You see, those that live under tyranny are, in essence, slaves to the tyrant. Maybe not in the way that brings up images of 19th century America, but certainly as a tax and debt slave. The only way the government can ever pay off it's debts is through the fruits of your labor. If you leave, they are finished. So, do you think you will be able to, when the time comes? I kind of doubt it.
On that happy note, here is what Simon Black at The Sovereign Man had to say about it today:
Can you imagine being trapped inside your home country, unable to leave? It may be closer to a reality than you realize. I'll tell you a quick story to explain.
This weekend I rented a car in Bulgaria with the aim of driving through Serbia, Kosovo, Macedonia, and eventually into Greece. Now, I'm no virgin to land border crossings in the developing world and understand the corruption and incompetence that typifies customs checkpoints. But this weekend's experience was much more.
With documents in hand, I drove to my first border crossing in Strezimirovci, Bulgaria. After clearing customs on the Bulgarian side, the Serbian officers decided that they would not allow me to enter with the normal papers, and instead required that I obtain another customs form to proceed.
Unfortunately, they had no such customs form at their station, so they turned me around and sent me to another border check point in Kalotina, over an hour away.
The road from Strezimirovci to Kalotina skirts the Serbian border for a large part of the drive-- quite literally, on one side of the road is Serbia, and on the other is Bulgaria. It's all part of the same landscape with no discernable difference... these are just invisible lines guarded by gun-toting monkeys.
When I arrived to Kalotina, I found the 'office' where I was supposed to obtain the new document-- just a simple, roadside concession stand. The 'agent' was the shop's proprietor, a chain-smoking Serbian woman with rather mannish features.
Once I paid the appropriate fee, she spent the next 10 minutes hacking at her keyboard to produce an official looking Cyrillic document with lots of stamps and seals.
While I was waiting for her to finish, four different customers came into the shop to stock up on snacks and drinks. All they wanted was a cold one for the road, but they eventually got tired of waiting and left.
These four customers represented potential transactions that could have contributed something to the economy. Instead, though, they were preempted by an unnecessary bureaucracy that adds absolutely no value whatsoever.
As expected, the Serbian customs agent barely glanced at the form when I crossed the border this time. Finally on Serbian soil, I pointed my car towards Pristina.
Now, Serbia still pretends like Kosovo is part of its sovereign territory, and Serbian police are under strict instructions to make the immigration checkpoint on the Kosovo border as painful as possible.
The vehicle line at the checkpoint was backed up so much that it took several hours to pass. All along the way, there was not a single bathroom, vending machine, fuel station, or even street light. It's obvious that they want to incovenience travelers to the point that people will think twice before visiting Kosovo again.
When it was finally my turn, I drove up to the policeman and handed him all of my papers. He slowly went through every single detail, looking for any technicality he could find to prevent me from crossing.
The rest the station was staffed with 10 other agents. All brandished automatic weapons slung over their backs, yet each stood around doing absolutely nothing. One person was "working," and the other ten were smoking, eating, drinking, and shooting the breeze.
Frankly, I pity all of these border agents whose only function is to deny, obstruct, or otherwise frustrate the forward progress of other human beings. These people will go their entire careers contributing nothing of value to the world, and destroying what others are trying to create. It's truly a pitiful existence.
This weekend's affair was a clear example of what happens when a government imposes mind-numbing bureacracy to prevent freedom of movement. And if you think it can't happen where you live, think again.
In the US, the government now requires all citizens to have a passport in order to pass the border, even when driving into Mexico or Canada. Obtaining a passport, however, is neither free nor guaranteed. You must apply, pay an ever-increasing fee, and wait for weeks to be approved and receive it.
Recently, the State Department quietly proposed a new 'biographical questionnaire' in lieu of the traditional passport application. The new form requires you to provide things like:
- names, birth places, and birth dates of your extended family members
- your mother's place of employment at the time of your birth
- whether or not your mother received pre-natal or post natal care
- the address of your mother's physician and dates of appointments
- the address of every place you have ever lived in your entire life
- the name and address of every school you have ever attended
Most people would find it impossible to provide such information, yet the form requires that the responses 'are true and correct' under penalty of imprisonment.
Naturally, the privacy statement on the application also acknowledges that the responses can be shared with other departments in the government, including Homeland Security.
If this proposal passes, then US citizens will have a nearly insurmountable hurdle to obtain a passport and be able to leave the country at will. Even if it doesn't pass, it's a clear demonstration of what the people who run the country are thinking.
If you haven't done so yet, you should sign up for Simon's Notes From The Field
Have you reached your breaking point yet, comrades? Let me know what you think.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Warmal Colding, Global ahhhhhhhhh! More BS
It seems that now, pollution is good for the environment. These state controlled, eco-maniacal, so called "scientists" can't make up their minds about anything. At this point, it might be best for all involved to just drop it and move on. The cat, er, scam, is out of the bag.
(Reuters) - Smoke belching from Asia's rapidly growing economies is largely responsible for a halt in global warming in the decade after 1998 because of sulphur's cooling effect, even though greenhouse gas emissions soared, a U.S. study said on Monday.
The paper raised the prospect of more rapid, pent-up climate change when emerging economies eventually crack down on pollution.
World temperatures did not rise from 1998 to 2008, while manmade emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuel grew by nearly a third, various data show.
The researchers from Boston and Harvard Universities and Finland's University of Turku said pollution, and specifically sulphur emissions, from coal-fueled growth in Asia was responsible for the cooling effect.
Sulphur allows water drops or aerosols to form, creating hazy clouds which reflect sunlight back into space.
"Anthropogenic activities that warm and cool the planet largely cancel after 1998, which allows natural variables to play a more significant role," the paper said.
Natural cooling effects included a declining solar cycle after 2002, meaning the sun's output fell.
The study said that the halt in warming had fueled doubts about anthropogenic climate change, where scientists say manmade greenhouse gas emissions are heating the Earth.
"It has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008," said the study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States.
A peak in temperatures in 1998 coincided with a strong El Nino weather event, a natural shift which brings warm waters to the surface of the Pacific Ocean every few years.
Subsequent years have still included nine of the top 10 hottest years on record, while the U.N. World Meteorological Organization said 2010 was tied for the record.
A U.N. panel of climate scientists said in 2007 that it was 90 percent certain that humankind was causing global warming.
COAL
Sulphur aerosols may remain in the atmosphere for several years, meaning their cooling effect will gradually abate once smokestack industries clean up.
The study echoed a similar explanation for reduced warming between the 1940s and 1970s, blamed on sulphur emissions before Western economies cleaned up largely to combat acid rain.
"The post 1970 period of warming, which constitutes a significant portion of the increase in global surface temperature since the mid 20th century, is driven by efforts to reduce air pollution," it said.
Sulphur emissions are linked to coal consumption which in China grew more than 100 percent in the decade to 2008, or nearly three times the rate of the previous 10 years, according to data from the energy firm BP.
Other climate scientists broadly supported Monday's study, stressing that over longer time periods rising greenhouse gas emissions would over-ride cooling factors.
"Long term warming will continue unless emissions are reduced," said Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring at Britain's Met Office.
(Reuters) - Smoke belching from Asia's rapidly growing economies is largely responsible for a halt in global warming in the decade after 1998 because of sulphur's cooling effect, even though greenhouse gas emissions soared, a U.S. study said on Monday.
The paper raised the prospect of more rapid, pent-up climate change when emerging economies eventually crack down on pollution.
World temperatures did not rise from 1998 to 2008, while manmade emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuel grew by nearly a third, various data show.
The researchers from Boston and Harvard Universities and Finland's University of Turku said pollution, and specifically sulphur emissions, from coal-fueled growth in Asia was responsible for the cooling effect.
Sulphur allows water drops or aerosols to form, creating hazy clouds which reflect sunlight back into space.
"Anthropogenic activities that warm and cool the planet largely cancel after 1998, which allows natural variables to play a more significant role," the paper said.
Natural cooling effects included a declining solar cycle after 2002, meaning the sun's output fell.
The study said that the halt in warming had fueled doubts about anthropogenic climate change, where scientists say manmade greenhouse gas emissions are heating the Earth.
"It has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008," said the study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States.
A peak in temperatures in 1998 coincided with a strong El Nino weather event, a natural shift which brings warm waters to the surface of the Pacific Ocean every few years.
Subsequent years have still included nine of the top 10 hottest years on record, while the U.N. World Meteorological Organization said 2010 was tied for the record.
A U.N. panel of climate scientists said in 2007 that it was 90 percent certain that humankind was causing global warming.
COAL
Sulphur aerosols may remain in the atmosphere for several years, meaning their cooling effect will gradually abate once smokestack industries clean up.
The study echoed a similar explanation for reduced warming between the 1940s and 1970s, blamed on sulphur emissions before Western economies cleaned up largely to combat acid rain.
"The post 1970 period of warming, which constitutes a significant portion of the increase in global surface temperature since the mid 20th century, is driven by efforts to reduce air pollution," it said.
Sulphur emissions are linked to coal consumption which in China grew more than 100 percent in the decade to 2008, or nearly three times the rate of the previous 10 years, according to data from the energy firm BP.
Other climate scientists broadly supported Monday's study, stressing that over longer time periods rising greenhouse gas emissions would over-ride cooling factors.
"Long term warming will continue unless emissions are reduced," said Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring at Britain's Met Office.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)