Neo-conservatives like to use the expression “cut and run” when describing the Ron Paul-style non-interventionist desire to pull out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and close our many bases in other countries. If we embraced the “cut and run” strategy instead of the “surge” strategy we would already be well on our way to winning the so-called “War on Terror”. I use the words “on our way” to emphasize that such a war can never be won in the classic sense. There can only be varying levels of success.
The idea would be to trade in America’s my-gun-is-bigger-than-yours foreign policy for a more constitution-oriented, defense-focused effort. Sure, it would permit the terrorists to openly claim victory. So what? This is the kind of victory that, in the end, helps reduce terrorism. Once victorious, what is their recruiting incentive?
I know what you’re thinking: “But they hate us because we are free! They’ll just continue what they are doing!”
“They hate us because we are free” is the neo-conservative equivalent of the “truther” claim that “9/11 was an inside job”. Just because it becomes a convenient narrative for pundits on either side doesn’t necessarily make it true.
What is an American supposed to make of this almost offhand statement by Graeme Rowley, outgoing CEO of Australia’s Fortescue Metals Group: “The world hasn’t woken up to the fact that they (the Chinese) are going to replace America” (“Australia welcomes China’s investment, if not its influence,” Washington Post, 2/14)? The imminent danger might only be that if enough people keep making such statements they’ll come true as self-fulfilling prophesies, but we might as well consider the possibility that a descent down the ladder of post-World War II hegemony might befall us. If so, we should think about our responses. I have three suggestions.
First, we should try being honest. I say this not so much as an ethical proposition, but more as a practical idea. I well remember a youthful me of the 60’s fuming at being told that the Gulf of Tonkin “incident” constituted an attack on America by a dangerous power. What a crock that was; even the networks, who bought everything else, didn’t buy that. Looking back, I see that a good part of my rage was induced not by our going to war, but by the reluctance of our leaders to speak openly about the reasons. Years later Lyndon Johnson, when safely out of office, wrote with some candor of his inner struggle as commander in chief during the Vietnam War: “If I left that war and let the Communists take over South Vietnam, then I would be seen as a coward and my nation would be seen as an appeaser and we would both find it impossible to accomplish anything for anybody anywhere on the entire globe.” Setting aside the question of whether Johnson’s concerns were justified, at least these were credible reasons to consider war. How much less furious I and many others would have been during the war had Johnson just come out and said, “We should fight so we won’t look like wimps.”
A fellow citizen contacted me this morning concerning your recent vote to approve the spending of $503 million in HR 4061, the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2009, last week with a 422-5 vote. This individual was distraught that Congress intends in the future to restrict the freedom of the internet, and after further review I believe her concerns are not unwarranted.
This $503 million-dollar bill enlarges and expands the funding of the existing Cyber Security Research and Development program in a time where overspending is a key concern. Section 105 tags $395 million for ‘Computer and Network Security Research Grants’ for the building of new buildings and research grants dedicated to subsidizing education and post-doctoral research. Another $108 million is tagged in Section 107 for the ‘Federal Cyber Scholarship for Service’ program which doles out free tuition in exchange for requiring recipients to work for the federal government.
HR 4061 copies section 11 and 12 of the highly controversial S 773 bill sponsored by Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia. This draconian bill, in section 18, gives broad executive power to the President to “declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network.” I see HR 4061 as part of a slow, stepwise progression to the possible licensing, regulation, seizure, and censuring of the internet.
Sometimes I wonder why Barack Obama is marching the United States down the path of destruction with his trillion dollar budgets and insane laws like cap-and-trade that would rob us of our money and our freedom.
As we go deeper and deeper into a financial hole that will take generations to get out of, you’ve got be asking yourself Why? What is the reasoning behind profligate spending and laws so obviously bad even a blind man could see their end results.
What is the endgame of this governmental madness we find ourselves in? What is Obama trying to do? Who’s on the other end of his Blackberry and what are they telling him? Are the controlling powers that be trying to remake America into some kind of socialist paradise? Or are they trying to make sure America is never again a threat to the world as they want to see it?
Over the past three or four years a strange phenomenon has developed in the global investment markets. With some exceptions, many asset classes, in particular domestic and foreign equities, commodities, and foreign currencies have tended to move in the same direction on a day to day basis. The mega-correlation has lasted so long that most now take it for granted. This leaves investors with relatively simple choices: when to get in to the market in general and when to park assets in cash and U.S. Treasuries.
However, few recall that this pattern is relatively new in the annals of financial history. Fewer still realize the reason for the current anomaly. From my perspective the most logical explanation is fear, which has become global, pervasive, and persistent. Traditionally, when investors fear inflation they buy stocks, commodities, gold, and foreign currencies, and sell dollars and U.S. treasuries. When they fear deflation they sell stocks, commodities, gold, and foreign currencies, and buy dollars and U.S. treasuries. The problem is that right now, no one knows which one to fear. Depending on the news the pendulum swings from one extreme to another on a daily basis.
In a blog article posted by Steve Brown at Fox News we get another glimpse into the heated senatorial Kentucky GOP primary. In it we learn that Rand Paul is the fiscally conservative, brutal truth-telling, unabashedly anti-establishment candidate. While his opponent, Trey Grayson, couldn’t be more of a surfer on the political waves of the DC elite.
Paul continued: “We have legislators we sent to Washington who think their job is to be an errand boy or an errand girl for us…and grab as much federal money as they can get and bring it back.”
Sitting at the table closest to the podium was Hal Rogers…CONGRESSMAN Hal Rogers. The 5th District Republican who went to Washington the same year Ronald Reagan did…1981. Rogers is a prolific procurer of federal dollars (aka ‘pork’). Last year alone…according to Citizens Against Government Waste…Rogers hauled home $80-million dollars in pork.
Contrast this with Grayson who followed Paul at the podium:
Getting back to McCreary County…after Paul all but called Hal Rogers an un-repentant part of Washington’s budget woes…Trey Grayson stepped to the mic.
Grayson…Kentucky’s two-term Secretary of State acknowledge there is discontent among Kentucky voters. The anti-establishment feeling is out there. But on this occasion…Senate candidate Grayson did what many would say is the smart political thing. He passionately defended Rogers.
Grayson refered to “one of my opponents”…but it was clear this one was lobbed at Paul:
“When he’s calling out career politicians…he’s calling out Hal Rogers and Mitch McConnell…and let me tell you one thing. Hal Rogers and Mitch McConnell are part of the solution in Washington. They are not part of the problem!”
The difference between the two candidates could not be more clear. Do you want someone who is willing to face the hard truths about being fiscally responsible or do you want yet another political chameleon without clear convictions on anything?
If you are reading this then I think you know the right answer. Check out http://randpaul2010.com/.
Here’s a video from Fox News related to this article:
New Mexico, as are most states run by Democrats these days, is greedy, corrupt, and broke.
Our legislature meets yearly in January and, seeking to allay a current state budget deficit of over a half billion dollars in one of the poorer states of the union, rather than cut back spending to a useful degree or trim workers from our bloated government is going to stand pat.
Taxes, taxes, taxes are the only words of the day in Santa Fe. One idea from a local politician is, of course, the old standby of raising cigarette taxes, and in this case, a dollar a pack. Picking the pocket of the one group that’s pariah and friendless is the usual move when governmental money problems come along as is the motive, in this case, the faux concern for smokers’ well-being to justify this money grab.
There’s something about our politicians constantly bringing up ‘sin’ taxes to pay for their idea of government that just has to stick in your craw. They seem to know so much about our sins yet they blindly ignore their own.
For instance:
The sin of overspending – like a spoiled child in a candy store, our representatives in Washington want everything they see and, thus, have spent us into a 12 trillion dollar national debt. Plus, Mr. Obama has come out with a 2010 budget which features a $1.56 trillion dollar deficit. I’d like to spend at this rate but if I did, the guy from the big screen TV store would come down and break my legs.
by John Browne, Senior Market Strategist, Euro Pacific Capital
The European experiment with a trans-sovereign currency is facing its first acid test. The flashpoint today is Greece, which looks set to default on its debt barring some outside intervention. While many commentators have been squawking about the immediate crisis as if it were the end of life on Earth, I would like to zoom out and discuss the history and longer-term outlook for the euro and its parent, the European Union.
The launch of the euro was a major milestone in the sixty year process of European federalization. Economic considerations have always led the charge, from a normalization of tariffs to a free-trade area to a customs union. Still, the launch of a pan-European fiat currency and central bank without a unified political apparatus behind it was always considered a risky move.
The frigid winters in mountainous Afghanistan usually pass by with few combat deaths due to less mobility and less activity in the weather. Each summer, the casualty rate has spiked. However, this January was an exception with over the deaths of 30 American soldiers and 9 more to date in February. These totals, along with the arrival of close to 40,000 more NATO and US troops, suggest a bloody summer is ahead in Afghanistan. Last year was a record-setting year for soldier deaths at 317 and the totals so far are about twice as high as the 2009 winter.
American citizens should question why exactly Nobel “Peace” Prize winner Barack Obama, the neoconservative chicken-hawk wing of the Republican Party (that is, most of them), and the interventionist war hawks in the Democratic Party (that is, most of them) are continuing to expend American blood and treasure on a meaningless war. HR 2647, the latest military spending bill of $680 billion for FY2010 was approved 389-22 in October by Congress.
As I have outlined in my platform, the Afghanistan and Pakistan Wars are unconstitutional and thereby illegal. These wars are unjust, preemptive wars of aggression that do not effectively address Al-Qaeda nor the real reasons America was attacked in the first place. Namely, this is our insistence to place over 761 military bases in 150 of the world’s 194 countries. No other country seeks to station their troops on foreign soil as we have. Americans certainly would not put up with the stationing of Chinese or Russian troops on our soil, so we should expect foreigners to feel no different.
Three provisions of the PATRIOT ACT are due to expire at the end of this month. These provisions are . . .
1. Business Records: allows searches on your personal data without your knowledge if the FBI convinces a judge it is “relevant” to a terrorism investigation. The data could be computer-related, financial, medical, or even your library check-out history 2. Lone Wolf: allows the federal government to spy on a foreign person with no known ties to a foreign government or terrorist group — a power that’s never been used 3. Roving Wiretap: allows federal agents to intercept phone conversations without having to specify the person being investigated or which phone is being used
The House and Senate can’t seem to agree on reforming the Patriot Act. They might, however, agree on another temporary renewal of these provisions for 2-6 months.
Liberty Maven.gif)
by Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital and author of 
by John Browne, Senior Market Strategist, Euro Pacific Capital.jpg)
American citizens should question why exactly 
Loading ...
