I spent the holidays reading a wonderful new libertarian-themed novel by first time author James Byrd called, “The Light of Day“. The book explores what could happen if the environmentalist movement is permitted to “run the world”. It’s the future and everyone is required to live underground because living above ground is too environmentally unfriendly.
It is certainly a sci-fi page turner with a fast moving plot and interesting characters. The novel juxtaposes two societies, a society with very little freedom and another that is about as libertarian as you can get. Byrd accomplishes this effort quite effectively without getting overly preachy. There are no multi-page John Galt style speeches. Byrd uses the plot to emphasize the free vs. non-free “fight” in a quite understated way.
I’m sure there are those that will balk that Byrd’s vision of a future where environmentalists control society in such a way, but that’s not really the point here as I see it. The point really is to illustrate that your individual freedom is being assaulted on all fronts, not just the obvious ones.
The good news is that President Obama isn’t going to Copenhagen to sign a treaty, but he may sign a proposal that could lead to a treaty at a later date. The Copenhagen proposal is designed to create an international scheme to control carbon emissions (and the entire world economy in the bargain).
President Obama wants to have the “cap and trade” (cap and tax) bill passed before he goes to Copenhagen.
Our goal should be to send him to Denmark empty-handed.
It probably isn’t the best way to control carbon emissions, assuming you believe that’s important
The climate models that supposedly justify cap and trade have been consistently wrong
Cap and trade needs 60 votes to come to the floor in the Senate. If we can stop that from happening now then there’s no way that 67 Senators will come together later to ratify a treaty for the same purpose, especially if that treaty cedes American sovereignty to international organizations.
We must defeat cap and trade. We must send Obama to Denmark empty-handed.
Ron Paul published a video answering the question, “What do you think about Obama winning the Nobel Peace Price?”
Ron covers many of the same points critics have made already, but he interestingly points out that the anti-war Left is AWOL now that Obama is in office. Projecting a bit into the future I’m curious what will become of these “Tea Partiers” if another big-government neo-conservative Republican wins the White House in 2012. Will they go AWOL too? I fear they will. Can we please, for the love of liberty, break this vicious cycle?
Partisanship is an evil drug and too many Republicans and Democrats are addicted. The Constitution was not created for convenience or whim. It was once the “supreme law of the land”, but now it really has become “just a god-damned piece of paper” for far too many people.
I expect there are many people out in the world today, some of them even Obama’s most staunch supporters, wondering why Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. Saying that I’m incredulous is an understatement. He just bombed the moon. He has continually bombed and killed civilian innocents in Pakistan. We are not out of Iraq. We are not out of Afghanistan.
Louis Armstrong’s famous song “What A Wonderful World” is now officially satire.
Maybe the Nobel Prize Committee was afraid of being called racist?
The award of this year’s Nobel peace prize to President Obama will be met with widespread incredulity, consternation in many capitals and probably deep embarrassment by the President himself.
Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent. It was clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel committee as a way of expressing European gratitude for an end to the Bush Administration, approval for the election of America’s first black president and hope that Washington will honour its promise to re-engage with the world.
Instead, the prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, patronising in its intentions and demeaning in its attempt to build up a man who has barely begun his period in office, let alone achieved any tangible outcome for peace.
Perhaps Obama winning this award is not surprising after all. The only other two sitting U.S. Presidents to win the award were Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt. Hmmm, do I detect a pattern here? Perhaps it should be renamed, “The Nobel Progressive Prize”. It certainly has nothing to do with peace.
What if this obvious political move has the unintended consequence of spreading more resentment for America overseas than less? In effect this would be using the prize as a strategic chess piece for wishes that will never come true.
“I don’t think Obama deserves this. I don’t know who’s making all these decisions. The prize should go to someone who has done something for peace and humanity,” said Ahmad Shabir, 18-year-old student in Kabul. “Since he is the president, I don’t see any change in U.S. strategy in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
I saw a bumper sticker today that said, “I Love Sarah”. I assumed it meant Sarah Palin and not Sarah Jessica Parker, but I can’t be sure. Last month Palin was echoing Ron Paul on the role of the Federal Reserve in America’s economic crisis. I encouraged her (not that she gives one moose about what I think) to echo Ron Paul on foreign policy as well.
Yesterday it became quite clear that she was never in danger of becoming a foreign policy non-interventionist like Paul.
Palin published a note on her Facebook page Tuesday that encourages President Barack Obama to grant a request for the tens of thousands of additional troops reportedly requested by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in the country.
“Now is not the time for cold feet, second thoughts, or indecision,” Palin wrote on the site. “It is the time to act as commander-in-chief and approve the troops so clearly needed in Afghanistan.”
Noting the possible consequences of not helping to build up Afghanistan’s institutions, the former Alaska governor also wholeheartedly endorsed McChrystal’s counterinsurgency approach to continued U.S. military presence in the country.
“We can win in Afghanistan by helping the Afghans build a stable representative state able to defend itself. And we must do what it takes to prevail. The stakes are very high. The 9/11 attacks were planned in Afghanistan, and if we are not successful there, al Qaeda will once again find a safe haven, the Taliban will impose its cruelty on the Afghan people, and Pakistan will be less stable.”
She is just confirming that she never was and never will be a libertarian, especially when it comes to foreign policy. Don’t let the new designation (or Eric Dondero) fool you. The Palin-Cons are the same old Neo-Cons.
by John Browne – Senior Market Strategist, Euro Pacific Capital
The Obama Administration waited until the wee hours of September 11th, 2009 to quietly inform Americans of its decision to slap new tariffs against low-end tire imports from China. Coming only days before this week’s important G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh, an occasion when China will likely renew its campaign to push the world towards a post-dollar economy, the timing of the announcement seems particularly ill-advised. To be frank, it is like waving a red flag in front of a bull. It is not surprising that China instantly retaliated with their own duties on U.S. auto parts and agricultural products.
The Administration’s action could be simply explained by the president’s need to mollify the trade unions that played a big role in his ascendancy to power. However, the equation may be more complicated.
Despite the mindless chortling of those who believe that the United States will experience a “jobless recovery,” employment holds the key to a healthy economy. It is also a potent political issue. In particular, labor unions subscribe to the idea that protectionism, in the form of trade barriers, preserves domestic jobs.
It is increasingly apparent that America and China are competing partners in a delicate and momentous power struggle, held together, temporarily, by mutual interest. America is the great consumer of the world; China, the great producer.
As a result of this relationship, America’s manufacturing base has been eroded severely, perhaps even mortally. This industrial destitution has been a key factor in the run up of American unemployment, now approaching twenty percent. Although this number is roughly twice the published official unemployment level of some ten percent, it is in fact a truer indication of the health of the labor market.
The difference is due to the fact that the official unemployment figures exclude all those who have given up searching for full-time employment or are only able to find part-time work. No such pass was given to out-of-luck workers during the Great Depression or the ’stagflation’ days of the 1970s. Unfortunately, this propaganda campaign to hide the true level of unemployment has been a smashing success.
Alan Grayson, a Florida Democrat who has been very critical in the past of Fed actions takes it to Bernanke today regarding foreign central bank lending. If the 90 or so Democratic cosponsors of Ron Paul’s HR1207 bill doesn’t convince you that Fed transparency is bipartisan then Grayson’s grilling of Bernanke should.
What I find especially horrid about this is that the U.S. is bankrupt and the Fed is not only printing money and handing it out to U.S. financial institutions, but is handing it out to foreign central banks so they can hand it out to their own financial institutions. Meanwhile the value of the dollar takes more of a hit exacerbating the “hidden” inflation tax on every person in the world who holds dollars.
Karl Rove was interviewed this morning on Glenn Beck’s radio show. During the interview he was asked by Beck if he supported the bill to “Audit the Fed”. That bill is Ron Paul’s HR1207, which as of right now has 261 cosponsors. What is interesting is how similar Rove’s response is to Barney Frank’s response when asked the same question.
Neither gives unequivocal support of auditing the Fed. Both say they agree with an audit in principle, but both seem to disagree with a complete audit as HR1207 (and it’s companion bill in the Senate S604) would accomplish. The reasoning they give can be summed up with two words that I (and many others) have attributed to Barack Obama in the past year: political subterfuge. Or if you prefer the layman version: bull shit.
Beck first asks Rove about the dollar as the reserve currency, then brings up the Fed audit bill. Listen below as Rove equivocates all over the place. This is further proof that our two party system is not Democrats vs. Republicans. It is the powerful status quo vs. everyone else. Isn’t it way past time for “everyone else” to stand up against this kind of claptrap?
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
The semi-heroic Ron Paul again dresses down his fellow lawmakers and our own attitudes regarding the role of government. This is one damn good 5 minute speech.
Liberty Maven
by John Browne – Senior Market Strategist, Euro Pacific Capital
