While Republican Bush II once famously claimed he was “the decider,” the ‘Change We Can Believe In’ promised by his replacement, the Democrat Obama, is hardly any different in regards to the Afghanistan and Pakistan wars. The media and American people breathlessly await the President’s decision on how many troops to send into the war zone. With spines made of jelly, Congress is as toothless as a bunch of newborns as they delegate their responsibilities to represent the American people to a single man. What could they ‘Change’ instead?
Congress could refuse to approve spending to extend this unconstitutional war of aggression against Afghanistan and Pakistan. Congress should instead pass a resolution for a rapid, immediate, and orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan and redeployment to protect America’s sieve-like borders. Congress could increase the reward for the capture of Osama Bin Laden forty times from $27 million to over $1 billion. Congress should also issue constitutional letters of marque to bring indicted terrorists to justice in a court of law.
To support this stance, I offer the following four key points: First, elected officials must begin behaving like the United States is a nation of laws, not a collection of rogues who delegate their gravest responsibility and immaturely fail to follow the supreme law of the land and declare war. Second, America’s historical foreign policy actions in Afghanistan and Pakistan must be understood, which contain the true reasons why terrorists attacked the United States in 2001. Third, a sober look at the eco-politics of the area, such as opiates and oil pipelines, must be taken. Lastly, we should contain the problem by securing our borders, and with all of the economic unrest, now is no time to be nation-building and quartering troops in foreign lands. Read More »
by John Browne – Senior Market Strategist, Euro Pacific Capital
The U.S. economy is in uncertain times. Analysts are split between those seeing recovery and those fearing a second downturn. This confusion is being echoed in the highest levels of government as President Obama simultaneously speaks about the need for more federal spending and warns of the dangers of increased debt. As the volatile markets indicate, investors are not only confused – they are seriously concerned.
The country appears to be going through a period of buyer’s remorse over the election of Barack Obama. The majority cobbled together by the President one year ago included the Democratic base, independents hoping for “change,” and many disaffected Republicans betrayed by the Bush Administration’s big-government neoconservatism. It is unlikely that most of these voters favored an overt push toward socialism; however, this is what they have received. As the ‘tea parties’ illustrate, voters are not only confused – they are seriously concerned.
The “cap and trade” bill will supposedly limit CO2 emissions. But it’s really a giant tax increase, mostly on the middle class. This violates promises President Obama and the Democrats made to get elected. The President even wants to redefine the word “tax” in order to hide the fact that he’s breaking his promise (see my letter to Congress below).Please send Congress a letter opposing the “cap and trade” tax increase.
You can copy or borrow from my letter to write your own . . .
I’m tired of being lied to by scheming, busybody politicians. President Obama and the Democrats promised there would be NO new taxes on the middle class. But everywhere I look I see middle class tax increases.
The healthcare bill is full of them, and the cap-and-trade bill is NOTHING BUT a middle class tax increase. It will raise my gasoline and electric bills to accomplish a supposed public purpose (as defined by you guys). That’s a tax, by any definition (except a politician’s).
STEPHANOPOULOS: “I don’t think I’m making it up (that you’re going to raise taxes). Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: ‘Tax: a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.’”
OBAMA: “George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition.”
This is evidence that moral rot has taken hold with the President.
Does he believe that words should be defined to suit his personal needs, instead of by common usage as reflected in an authoritative dictionary? Read More »
“Soldiers’ supreme wish is to avoid war, for the costs are inevitably paid with their blood and brains.“ – Jake Towne
November 11, 2009 11:11 AM
Today, many Americans take a moment to remember the veterans that have fulfilled their oaths to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies foreign and domestic.” All too many have paid the ultimate price, many defending their fellow soldiers, and many believing they were defending their countrymen. I am sure that this year the all-too-fresh Fort Hood tragedy will be on the minds of all veterans. As I stated in the campaign’s veterans plank:
“Service members shoulder a heavy burden when they volunteer to risk their lives in defense of our country. They perform a necessary function in our society and for their service veterans receive deserved benefits and gratitude. However, the greatest way to honor them is to keep them out of unnecessary conflict. The only just war is one carried out in self-defense, as a non-aggressor, and as a last resort.
“It’s important that we have a strong military to deter attacks against the our country and protect it when attacked. However, asking our young men and women to participate in unjust war is a moral abyss that we as a country should never leap into. If we aspire to be a just nation ruled by laws we must resolve to never ask our military men and women to engage in unconstitutional warfare and nation-building missions.”
Honor our soldiers abroad by bringing them home to protect our borders. Never EVER accept the shipping their bodies and brains to a war zone without a constitutional declaration of war. Read More »
Two dissatisfied customers comment about a restaurant. One says, “The food here is terrible.” The other replies, “I know, and such small portions!” In many ways, they could be describing our current employment picture. Not only are the portions shrinking, but the jobs themselves are steadily losing quality.
Today’s release of the October jobs report showed the loss of another 190,000 jobs had pushed the official unemployment rate to 10.2%, only the second time since the Great Depression that unemployment was quoted in double digits (factoring in workers who had given up job hunting altogether or have settled for part-time work would push that rate to 17.5%). That didn’t stop Wall Street pundits from trying to fashion a silk purse of this sow’s ear. The ‘green shoots’ crowd focused on the slowing pace of job losses, the nascent economic ‘recovery’ (even if it is jobless), and the projected improvement in 2010. No mention was even made of the quality of what few jobs were being created.
The analysts completely ignored the continued trend of replacing goods-producing jobs with those jobs that require production from other sources. For example, we lost 61,000 manufacturing jobs last month, but added 45,000 jobs in education and health services. In particular, the addition of health workers is nothing to celebrate. Just as a family’s economic position is not improved by higher medical bills, the country as a whole does not benefit from increased health-care spending. Until this trend reverses, our unbalanced economy will not regain its stability, a real recovery will never take hold, and the overall job outlook will get much bleaker.
“How did I go bankrupt? Two ways. Slowly, and then all of a sudden.” — paraphrased from “The Sun Also Rises” by Ernest Hemingway
“May you live in interesting times.” — a proverbial Chinese curse
President Bush and the Republican Congress expanded government more than any administration in history. They also laid the basic foundations for a future police state. Now, President Obama and the Democratic Congress have . . .
Retained, and in some cases expanded, all the Bush-era policies — the wars, the PATRIOT Act, warrantless spying, REAL ID, imprisonment without due process, extraordinary rendition, etc.
Begun to extend the already existing foundations for a future socialist state with things like direct government ownership of businesses, the health care bill, cap and trade, and a host of other measures big and small
Put the Bush and Obama policies together, sprinkle in a couple more terrorist attacks, and one or two more state-caused financial calamities, and you have a recipe for . . .
The destruction of American liberty
The blossoming of a Leviathan State
Read the signs . . .
We are living through a Statist revolution.
Statism is a mindset that prefers coercion to cooperation. Statists love the State because they are blind to its fundamental nature . . .
The State is a monopoly that you cannot easily fire, replace, or even control
Dr. Elinor Ostrum, 76, based her work around the idea that there are human interactions beyond the statistics of market prices surrounding the “commons” such as fish stocks, pastures, woods, lakes, and groundwater basins are managed as common property. Although this idea itself is not new – Ludvig von Mises covered this in gory detail inHuman Action from 1949, Jared Diamond provided both historical and modern examples in his 2005 book Collapse, and Walter Block and Hans Hermann-Hoppe of the Mises Institute have reviewed many aspects of the commons already – it IS probably new to the Nobel committee. However, the details of her work itself are very novel.
As nominations were submitted before February 1, 2009, much of the world was shocked to find out that freshman President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. To his credit, Obama proclaimed he was “surprised and deeply humbled” and did not feel he deserved “to be in the company” of past Peace Prize winners. I must say that, politically-speaking, the former junior senator from Illinois is to be admired in many respects. To prevent and distract the press from analyzing his worthiness for the Peace Prices, the very next day he announcedthat he would (eventually) end the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy of the military – a crafty move that appeals to his base and Americans who champion and respect civil liberties and individual rights, which includes myself.
Per NobelPeacePrize.org, in 1895 Alfred Nobel signed his will to use most of his fortune to fund the Nobel Prizes. The Peace Prize was dedicated to “the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”
Has the President done the “most or best work for fraternity between nations”? I would say not. Four days after becoming President, he ordered the bombing of a village in Pakistan, which is yet another nation the United States has not declared war on.
Has the President worked for “the abolition or reduction of standing armies”? Certainly not that of the United States. In fact, per his website, he was elected on the promise that he would expand America’s standing army by about 100,000 troops.
A year ago when the Presidential election was in full swing the main buzzword we heard out of the Obama camp was “change”. In fact, “change you can believe in”. At the time we were pretty sure it was all hogwash and his first year in office has proven that assessment to be true.
A piece by Glenn Greenwald over at Salon.com a few weeks ago points out many examples how so much of Obama’s talk of change was just that: talk.
“When it comes to uprooting (’changing’) the Bush/Cheney approach to terrorism and civil liberties — the issue which generated as much opposition to the last presidency as anything else — the Obama administration has proven rather conclusively that tiny and cosmetic adjustments are the most it is willing to do.
“They love announcing new policies that cast the appearance of change but which have no effect whatsoever on presidential powers.
“With great fanfare, they announced the closing of CIA black sites — at a time when none was operating.
“They trumpeted the President’s order that no interrogation tactics outside of the Army Field Manual could be used — at a time when approval for such tactics had been withdrawn.
“They repudiated the most extreme elements of the Bush/Addington/Yoo ‘inherent power’ theories — while maintaining alternative justifications to enable the same exact policies to proceed exactly as is.
“They flamboyantly touted the closing of Guantanamo — while aggressively defending the right to abduct people from around the world and then imprison them with no due process at Bagram.
“Their ‘changes’ exist solely in theory — which isn’t to say that they are all irrelevant, but it is to say that they change nothing in practice: i.e., in reality.”
“Isn’t it so interesting how the phrase ‘Patriot Act’ was the symbol of everything Democrats claimed to find so heinous during the Bush years, but now that there’s a Democratic President, Senate and Congress, it’s absolutely certain that the Patriot Act will continue, and civil libertarians are reduced to hoping that there may be some tiny modifications to it, and even that’s highly unlikely?”
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.
Liberty Maven
by John Browne – Senior Market Strategist, Euro Pacific Capital
Today, many Americans take a moment to remember the veterans that have fulfilled their oaths to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies foreign and domestic.” All too many have paid the ultimate price, many defending their fellow soldiers, and many believing they were defending their countrymen. I am sure that this year the all-too-fresh Fort Hood tragedy will be on the minds of all veterans. As I stated in 
by Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital and author of 
Follow LM on Twitter