Originally published on November 14, 2009, at http://towneforcongress.com/platform-issues/afghanistan-war

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.   

The Problem of Osama Bin Laden

“The Congress shall have Power… to declare War [and] grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal.” – The Constitution of the United States, 1787-present. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11.

When America began bombing Afghanistan in November 2001 and expanded the “War of Terror” by commencing daily bombing of Pakistani villages in September 2008, both assaults were committed against sovereign states without a declaration of war, which is a constitutional requirement. The key justification related to the public for both wars was the tragic 9/11 attacks. The key goal related to the public for both wars was simply to capture Osama Bin Laden.

After having read the July 2004 9/11 Commission Report, there should be enough evidence to bring Bin Laden to trial for the 9/11 attacks.  (1) Even though I believe Bin Laden was behind the attacks, a dispassionate observer would question why the following facts are not generally known by the American public:

1. Per the CIA’s FBIS, Bin Laden said in a public interview on September 18, 2001 that “I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States… Neither I had any knowledge of these attacks…” While he could certainly be lying, why would he deny responsibility? The entire point of terrorism is to advance a cause through violence and fear.  (2)

2. On their “Most Wanted” poster, the FBI does not specify that Bin Laden is wanted for trial in connection to the 9/11 attack which may mean that there is not enough hard or admissible evidence to try him in a court of law. (3)

However, the question of 9/11 responsibility is somewhat moot in the case of Bin Laden. Although he was a CIA “asset” in the proxy war fought against the Soviets in the 1980s, Bin Laden has been America’s enemy since 1998 when, on the anniversary of American troops to Bin Laden’s native Saudi Arabia, simultaneous bombings at US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killed 12 American citizens. (4A) (4B) The USS Cole suicide bombing which killed 17 American sailors while harbored in Yemen, and the 1993 World Trade Center garage explosion which killed 6 civilians are also tied to Bin Laden. (4A) (5) (6)

However, hurling armies of tens of thousands after Bin Laden is not cost effective, nor is it constitutional – nor has it succeeded after the past 8 years. Therefore I would support the raising the reward for the capture of Bin Laden from $27 million to over $1 billion, and the issuing of a constitutional letter of marque to bring him – and other responsible Al-Qaeda – to justice. Letters of marque and reprisal are warrants issued by Congress to specified parties giving them permission to commit what would otherwise be illegal acts as they capture “marked” enemies or seek retribution, as was done against the Barbary pirates in 1812. (7) The higher reward would incentivize groups to pursue Bin Laden, and could conceivably include US special forces.

Afghanistan and Pakistan are Unjust Wars

“Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.” – former President and Supreme Allied Commander in WWII Dwight D. Eisenhower

Besides a formal declaration of war, the “just war” doctrine specifies that wars cannot be preemptive; that there must be a just cause and innocent life must be in immediate jeopardy; that war must be a last resort after all diplomatic initiatives have failed; and it must be proportional in regards to the damage caused by the aggressor. (8)

Neither the Taliban nor Pakistan attacked the United States, and America was not in dire danger of an attack from either the Taliban or Pakistani military.

While the Taliban did shelter Bin Laden, the American government did not exhaust diplomacy – as a matter of fact, the government blindly ignored any efforts by the Taliban. On October 4, 2001, a Taliban plan to extradite Bin Laden to Pakistan for trial failed. (9) On October 7, as the bombing began, the Taliban stated they would place Bin Laden on trial in Afghanistan. (10) On October 14, the Taliban stated they would extradite Bin Laden to a third country for trial if America presented evidence of his involvement. (11)

Proportional? In 2001, 2,976 died during the 9/11 tragedy with 4 planes destroyed, 3 collapsed buildings in New York City, and a damaged Pentagon. In return, we have annihilated many tens of thousands of innocent civilians, many insurgents, and laid waste to countless cities and villages in a country that had no air force. If one includes the 19-year long Iraq War, several million civilian dead is a reasonable total. If this were somehow not enough, 5,278 American soldiers have died abroad. (12)

Afghanistan, the Graveyard of Empires: History on Brutal Rerun

“Intelligence is quickness in seeing things as they are.” – George Santayana

The Russians, British, even Alexander the Great have all met with defeat in Afghanistan, where the allegiances of a motley collection of tribes and clans still shift like the wind. America’s present-day involvement did not start in 2001, but instead began in 1979. The Muslim rebels, including Bin Laden, were funded via a proxy war to bled the Soviet Empire dry a few years before its’ failed central economic planning would have accomplished the same feat. President Carter’s National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski – who later was an advisor for President Obama – related in a 1998 interview that America fomented unrest in Afghanistan by secretly funding the Mujahadeen well before the Soviets invaded. When Brzezinski was asked if he regretted funding Islamic fundamentalists and future terrorists, he replied, “What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?”  (13)

Brzezinski’s attitude was typical as America wiped its hands clean and left Afghanistan to tribal warfare which resulted in the Taliban consolidating power in the late 1990s. After fleeing Sudan, Osama Bin Laden found shelter with old contacts in the Northern Alliance and also the Taliban. As is related in the 9/11 Commission Report in chapters titled “The Attack Looms” and “The System Was Blinking Red,” America took very few actions to capture or kill Bin Laden until after 9/11 occurred. (14) However, even after 9/11 America was very hesitant to spend our soldiers’ lives. Consider:

On October 7, 2001 American and British air forces began the bombardment of Afghanistan, which had no air force. Air strikes directed by small British and American special forces units working alongside the Northern Alliance were the key reason the Taliban was defeated very quickly.

On November 13, Kabul was captured by Northern Alliance ground forces.

On November 26, Kunduz was captured by Northern Alliance ground forces.

In December the last major city of Kandahar was captured, also by Northern Alliance ground forces. (15)

During December 12-17 the infamous Battle of Tora Bora was fought in the mountains on the Afghanistan border. It is widely believed that this is when Bin Laden escaped to Pakistan. (16) (Photo)

So President Bush, despite any rhetoric to the contrary, did NOT allow American land forces to pursue him on land. In other words, we launched 150,000 troops over the Iraqi border in 2003 to capture Saddam Hussein, who was completely uninvolved with 9/11, but had only aerial bombardment and a few scant special op/CIA forces in Afghanistan to capture Bin Laden. Bush was content to let the Northern Alliance, a group of tribal warlords, fight a proxy war on our behalf.  (17)

It wasn’t until March 2002 that a major ground campaign was launched by the US to attack Al-Qaeda, and this can be seen by just looking at the casualty list’s details – most of those who died up to March were non-hostile airplane crashes or special ops related deaths. The first US combat death was a CIA operative on November 25. (18)

Will America join the dead phalanxes of Alexander and the rusted tanks of the Soviets in the graveyard of empires? I do not think we should stay long enough to find out. We are spending $400 to deliver each gallon of gasoline to patrol foreign borders, and currently maintaining an expensive army of 68,000 troops in the field. (19) The current National Security Advisor James Jones claimed in October 2009 that there are “less than 100 [al Qaeda] operating in the country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies.“ (20)

A Tale of Opiates and Oil

“The first casualty when war comes is the truth.” – Senator Hiram Johnson, 1917

These are two fairly taboo subjects when the Afghanistan War is covered by the mainstream press. How much each factor truly played in foreign policy decision-making is left to the reader to decide.

Per the most recent, highly detailed United Nations report, the opium crop is over twice the pre-invasion levels. In fact, up until the invasion in November 2001, the Taliban’s mission to eradicate the crop was well underway due to their religious beliefs as seen by the dramatic drop in this chart. (21) The claim that the invasion has slowed down the drug trade is false; the war has accomplished the exact opposite.  This is a major cash market, with Afghanistan supplying over 90% of the world’s opiates.

The second topic is the geopolitics of oil.  While Afghanistan itself does not have fossil fuels, the vast and fairly-untapped reservoirs of oil and natural gas lie in the former Soviet satellite nations on the Afghan northern border. The Caspian Sea region is landlocked and there are plans to pipe the resources out via a Turkish or an Afghani-Pakistani pipeline, but political instability makes this difficult. A modern “Great Game” of geopolitical power struggles with the Russian, Chinese, Indian and Iranian governments is well underway. (22)

Border Security and the Economy

For those who do not heed the Constitutional limits on government, the brutal lessons taught by history, the immorality of unjust war, here are another two attempts to reason – border security and the economic turmoil.

As a chemical engineer, in industry when attacking customer problems, the first step is always containment of the problem, followed by root cause analysis, then preventative actions. In the case of 9/11, the Bush II administration made a foolhardy leap directly to preventative action, and has still not contained the threat of terrorism. In fact, even the “root cause analysis” from the 9/11 Commission did not begin until 14 months AFTER 9/11 instead of on 9/12/2001.  (23) Despite all the wasted bureaucracy in creating the monstrous $44-billion-a-year Department of Homeland Security, the American border is still a sieve with more holes than a piece of Swiss cheese as evidenced by rampant illegal immigration. (24) Returning the overseas Defense Department troops back to actually defending our borders with civilian border patrol staffing access points is extremely crucial for two reasons – our border security and our budget.

We must extricate our country from the overseas military empire of well over 700 bases in 150 of the planet’s 194 countries costing well over $1 trillion before it is too late. (25) With unemployment raging at over 20% and the dollar currency in crisis, imperial overstretch will result in the further stripping from the false Keynesian economy of our capital equipment, businesses, and jobs. If we and our children are to have peace in our lifetimes, we must drop the silly notion of America serving as the “world’s policeman” and JUST BRING OUR TROOPS HOME.

What kind of “policeman” patrols city streets with tanks, assault rifles, automated Predator drones and calls in aerial bombing and strafing runs to “peacekeep” the neighborhood? Washington DC is full of warmongers, armchair generals and chicken hawks who have no idea what the horrors of war entail. If our country were truly in danger of being invaded, I would be among the first to protect my family and friends. (Photo courtesy Leon Kuhn.  Used with permission.)

The enemies I have chosen to peacefully rise up against instead walk the halls of government.  Errant foreign policies are to blame for 9/11 and any future acts of terrorism on our soil.  In return for military and CIA meddling during the past century, America was hit on 9/11 by “blowback,” a CIA term coined to describe what goes around comes around.  (26) Without our troops stationed on Saudi, Bahraini, Qatari, Kuwaiti, et cetera soil, continuous supply of arms to both Israeli and Arab factions, and continuous bombing of Iraq, and harsh sanctions on Iraq and Iran, we would not have been attacked on 9/11.

We must be far more wary of the reckless spenders who support the Warfare-Welfare state, the FED and corporatist bailouts than of desperate bands starving in caves on the opposite side of the world. The American republic was conceived in liberty and is dead in its grave until We the People decide to fight for our freedoms.  While I draw breath I intend to see that liberty shall not perish under the heavy fist of this unconstitutional and illegal collection of rogues in government.

For freedom, justice, peace and prosperity,

Jake Towne

November 14, 2009

[Note: If you would like to find out what General McChrystal, commander of our forces suggests we do instead, here is his leaked and declassified report. While I had been hoping to find a logical, detailed alternative, unfortunately it reads like a poor high school book report that was turned in 8 years too late. The key takeaway is that “many indicators suggest the overall situation is deteriorating.” (page 5/66)  Also recommended reading is the resignation letter of Iraq War veteran Matthew Hoh, who resigned rather then continue serving in Afghanistan, and Imperial Hubris, a book written by the CIA's Bin Laden unit's former head, Michael Scheuer.]

Source List

(1)  The 9/11 Commission Report. 2004.  http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/index.htm

(2) FBIS Report. 2004.  “Compilation of Usama Bin Laden Statements 1994 – January 2004.” http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ubl-fbis.pdf

(3) FBI’s Most Wanted Fugitive: Usama Bin Laden.  http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

(4A)  The 9/11 Commission Report. 2004. Embassy attacks p. 132-8/585.  USS Cole p. 207-14/585. http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf

(4B) “1998 United States Embassy Bombings.“  Wikipedia.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_United_States_embassy_bombings

(5) “USS Cole Bombing.”  Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing

(6) “1993 World Trade Center Bombing.”  Wikipedia.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing

(7) Liberty Bell Center of Constitutional Studies. “What Are Letters of Marque and Reprisal?” http://www.lbccs.org/2009/11/what-are-letters-of-marque-and-reprisal.html

(8) “Just War.” Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War

(9) UK Telegraph.  4 October 2001.  “Pakistan Blocks Bin Laden Trial.“  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/1358464/Pakistan-blocks-bin-Laden-trial.html

(10) CNN. 7 October 2001.  “U.S. Rejects Taliban Offer to Try Bin Laden.“  http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/07/ret.us.taliban/

(11) UK Guardian. 14 October 2001.  “Bush Rejects Taliban Offer to Hand Bin Laden Over.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5

(12) Antiwar.com. U.S. Military Casualty Count.  http://antiwar.com/casualties/

(13) Le Nouvel Observateur. 1998.  “Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski.”  http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

(14)  The 9/11 Commission Report. 2004. p. 232-94/585.  http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf

(15) “Operation Enduring Freedom.” Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Enduring_Freedom

(16) “Battle of Tora Bora.” Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tora_Bora

(17) Bugliosi, Vincent. 2008.  “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder.”  p. 214-219.

(18) iCasualties.org. “Operation Enduring Freedom Fatalities.”  http://icasualties.org/OEF/Fatalities.aspx

(19) The Hill. October 2009.  “$400 per Gallon Gas to Drive Debate over Cost of War in Afghanistan.”  http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/63407-400gallon-gas-another-cost-of-war-in-afghanistan-

(20) Washington Times. October 2009.  “Obama Aide Downplays Extra Troops in Afghanistan.”  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/05/afghan-attacks-add-to-call-for-more-troops//print/

(21) United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. 2009.  “Afghanistan Opium Survey 2009 – Summary Findings.” p. 26/42. http://www.unodc.org/documents/crop-monitoring/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_opium_survey_2009_summary.pdf

(22) Johnson, Chalmers. 2004.  “The Sorrows of Empire.”

(23) “9/11 Commission.” Wikipedia.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission

(24) White House. FY 2009 Budget. p. 83/342. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf

(25) Towne, Jake. 2009.  “America’s Military Empire.“  http://towneforcongress.com/economy/americas-military-empire

(26) Johnson, Chalmers. 2001. “Blowback.”

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.

These concerns are justified. The Administration’s hard-left turn was evident from the outset. Ignoring expert advice to spend on job-creating infrastructure, Obama spent wildly on entitlements. Now, with rising grassroots discontent, a falling currency, and threats to America’s AAA credit rating, there is some evidence that the Administration is trying to hedge its bets through tough talk. Yet, they still have not taken any tough action. As their gold stockpiling highlights, foreign governments are not only confused – they are seriously concerned.

Over at the Federal Reserve, no such soul-searching appears to be underway. Its chairman, Ben Bernanke, is clearly intent on avoiding deleveraging. He has charted a course of massive liquidity injections, financed by hitherto unimaginable levels of monetary inflation. He has even attempted to coordinate these expansionary policies on an international basis.

For the moment, the cheap liquidity has saved Wall Street. To the delight of the Goldman Sachs, et al., the Fed has created a boom in financial assets, including equities, bonds and commodities. These rallies have stimulated a nearly universal belief that the worst has past. This feel-good attitude could be clearly seen on a recent cover of The Economist that read: “After the Storm – How to Make the Best of the Recovery.”

But, to many people, life looks increasingly desperate. Official U.S. figures admit to some 15 million unemployed. Despite the massive stimulus packages, American consumers are still in shock and not spending as they once did. Already, the fall in consumer demand is larger than that of the early 1930’s. The authorities now face a moment of truth: admit that they don’t have the power to bring the consumer back to life or redouble their efforts, consequences be damned.

The whole world awaits the decision, which could indicate a wild inflation, a major recession or the worst of both.

Should the Administration accept, or even be forced to accept, an ultimately healthy deleveraging, a deep recession would ensue. Entitlements would have to be dramatically reduced while taxes remain unreasonably high. Otherwise, the federal government could face outright default. Barring a popular revolt, this course would lead to a sustainable recovery.

On the other hand, if the government continues to run the printing presses, as seems far more likely, hyperinflation will become a distinct possibility. While this may create the appearance of recovery, with rising stocks and less short-term unemployment, average citizens will notice a sharp decline in their standard of living. It will get harder and harder to ‘make ends meet’ as wages increase less than the cost of everyday goods.

The hyperinflation scenario will likely buy the Administration a little more time, but would eventually give way to the worst of all possible worlds: hyperinflationary depression. Here, America would feel a deep recession concurrent with rising prices – similar to what we’re seeing right now with gold. This is truly a devastating outcome and should be avoided at all costs.

America is at a crossroads. It is important in these times to have leaders we can trust to make the right decisions, even if they are unpopular. Obama, Bernanke, Reid, Dodd, Pelosi, Frank… These are not names that are trusted to make wise choices over expedient ones. The markets know it; the voters know it; and, judging by the price of gold, the rest of the world knows it too.

For a more in-depth analysis of our financial problems and the inherent dangers they pose for the U.S. economy and U.S. dollar, read Peter Schiff’s 2008 bestseller “The Little Book of Bull Moves in Bear Markets” and his newest release “Crash Proof 2.0: How to Profit from the Economic Collapse.” Click here to learn more.More importantly, don’t let the great deals pass you by. Get an inside view of Peter’s playbook with his new Special Report, “Peter Schiff’s Five Favorite Investment Choices for the Next Five Years.” Click here to download the report for free. You can find more free services for global investors, and learn about the Euro Pacific advantage, at www.europac.net.

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. 

One of the disappointments I have had with the antiwar movement, generally speaking, is that somehow they believe they have elected a “peace candidate” in Barack Obama.  As a result, they have been largely silent for 10 months while the troop escalation to 68,000 and record American combat deaths continued in Afghanistan, and troop levels remain steady on the Iraq War front.  One shocking interview is Antiwar Radio’s Scott Horton debating with a co-founder of CodePink (the group had formally been for immediate withdrawal under Bush II) why American troops should remain in Afghanistan. Even if your thoughts on foreign policy differ from mine, the reversal of principles without reason is disturbing.

Here is my message – only when the members of the antiwar movement unite with the constitutionalists will our wars abroad cease.  Those outraged at the violations of the rule of law,  the violations of the criteria for “just war,” (video below) and the immorality of the slaughter of innocent “collateral damage” must join forces or be cut to pieces as seen in the 1734 Ben Franklin cartoon.  Read the campaign’s Iraq War plank here, and the Afghanistan War plank will be posted shortly.

This campaign was selected to appear on the subscription magazine cover of The New American with constitutional candidates Peter Schiff, Adam Kokesh, RJ Harris, Marvin “Chick” Heileson and Rand Paul.  Notably, both RJ Harris and Adam Kokesh are veterans who have served in the Middle East and oppose the wars.  The magazine PDF can be downloaded from The New American here or below.

That Freedom Shall Not Perish,

Jake Towne

The New American #2524 – Constitutional Candidates issue with Jake Towne

by Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital and author of Crash Proof 2.0: How to Profit from the Economic Collapse

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.

By spending trillions of dollars of borrowed money, President Obama hopes to engineer a recovery and create jobs. However, he has only succeeded in digging America into an even deeper hole than the one he inherited from his predecessor. He believes that if we can simply push up spending to levels seen during the “good times,” then those favorable economic conditions will return. The reality, of course, was that those good years came with a heavy price-tag that we have barely begun to pay.

In a press conference today, the President claimed that the latest extension of unemployment benefits will not only help the unemployed, but the overall economy as recipients spend the money. If spending government-granted money really were a benefit to the economy, why not simply increase the amounts endlessly? Why limit the benefits to the unemployed? Let’s make this recovery a real barn burner: send out million-dollar checks to everyone! Of course, what Obama and his economic advisors do not understand is that money spent by recipients of unemployment benefits is money not spent or invested by taxpayers. It’s a transfer of wealth, not a creation on new wealth.

In addition, policymakers are also struggling with diminishing returns on ultra-low interest rates. No matter how much monetary alcohol the Fed tries to pour down consumers’ throats, the swill simply will not go down anymore. Consumers have already had enough and are trying to sober up – by refusing to spend irrationally. The excess liquidity simply weakens the dollar and spills over into other pools, such as goods prices, money metals, commodities, and investment assets.

During the boom, we spent money we did not have to buy things we did not produce and could not afford. As a result, we are now deeply in debt and must sharply reduce our spending to replenish our savings. By focusing solely on consumer spending, the Administration is neglecting the capital investments necessary to improve our infrastructure and productive capacity.

To generate legitimate economic growth and meaningful jobs, we must reverse the trends that brought us down. Consumers may have led us into this recession, but they can’t lead us out. The road to recovery is a one-way street, and it’s paved with savings, capital investment, and production. It’s not an easy road, but we must follow it to ensure our future prosperity.

As a first step, our politicians must stop pushing us backward. Rather than imposing more market-distorting regulations, we should repeal those most responsible for inefficient resource allocation. Rather than creating new moral hazards, we should withdraw guarantees for large financial institutions and irresponsible consumers. Rather than continuing the Greenspan policy of keeping interest rates too low, we should let them rise. Rather than trying to prop up asset prices, we should let them fall to market levels. Rather than increasing the burden of bureaucracy on the economy, we should look for ways to lighten the load. Rather than encouraging people to borrow and spend, we should reward those who save and produce.

Until we acknowledge these fundamental errors, more of our citizens will lose their jobs. As those that stay employed are funneled into unproductive industries like the federal bureaucracy, the country will sink further into stagnation. Worse still, everyone taking jobs in these sectors will be laid off in the next phase of the crisis – and will have lost this opportunity to build practical skills for the new economy.

For a more in-depth analysis of our financial problems and the inherent dangers they pose for the U.S. economy and U.S. dollar, read Peter Schiff’s 2008 bestseller “The Little Book of Bull Moves in Bear Markets” and his newest release “Crash Proof 2.0: How to Profit from the Economic Collapse.” Click here to learn more.

More importantly, don’t let the great deals pass you by. Get an inside view of Peter’s playbook with his new Special Report, “Peter Schiff’s Five Favorite Investment Choices for the Next Five Years.” Click here to dowload the report for free. You can find more free services for global investors, and learn about the Euro Pacific advantage, at www.europac.net.

“The State is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.” — Frederic Bastiat, French economist of the 19th Century

“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

• 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
• Everything the State does relies on coercion

If you decide that . . .

• You don’t want to pay for, or be subject to, the new health care plan, or that . . .
• You prefer to buy and sell using gold and silver instead of Federal Reserve Notes, or that . . .
• You want to do, or not do, a host of other things that the politicians either require or prohibit,
• Then eventually a policeman will come to your door and threaten you with a gun, to make you submit

People who advocate expansive State action are really saying, “I think you should be threatened with, or actually suffer violence, if you don’t fund my pet schemes, or live the way I think you should.”

Such people would never go door to door pointing a gun at their neighbors, but the second-hand mechanism of the State allows them to hide their eyes from the violence implicit in what they profess.

Our government was founded to limit this kind of coercion. The American State was given two main functions . . .

• To punish coercion committed by one citizen against another
• To deter coercion by foreign States

Beyond that, nearly the entire Constitution is devoted to prohibiting State violence. This was the purpose of the divisions of power, the checks and balances, and the Bill of Rights. But now those protections lie in tatters.

Everyone is trying to use the State to live at the expense of everyone else, or to micro-manage their neighbors. Our traditional culture of individual liberty, personal responsibility, and peaceful, non-violent cooperation, is slowly dying. We are nearing a point where it may even die completely, suddenly, when we least expect it. As a result . . .

We live under the Chinese curse of interesting times. But we urge you to resist despair. We are even prepared to predict . . .

The End of Statism

Our reason is simple. Statism doesn’t work. The violence at its heart always . . .

• Destroys more than it creates
• Multiplies its victims, who become increasingly deperate enough to resist

Our purpose is to recruit and organize that resistance into an army. It’s . . .

• Why we do
• What we do
• The way we do it

We know that successful resistance will come slowly, before it comes suddenly. Victory will take time, but the time’s going to pass anyway, so why not use it wisely? This is why . . .

We reject all “get powerful quick” schemes as inherently unworkable. We know that societies and movements evolve slowly more often than they leap. History is littered with causes that failed because they couldn’t wait to succeed.

We neither need, nor expect, overnight success. Do you?

What we need instead is constant and consistent progress. And for that we need you, and for you to need us.

Remember where we’re going. We’re building toward the day when we can . . .

• Reach everyone, everywhere, every day, with the case for freedom and against Statism
• Build a big parade — a movement — in front of which opportunistic politicians will want to march. They’ll claim we’re following them, and we’ll let them think that!
• Deploy a huge army to exert relentless, resistance-numbing pressure on Congress, to make them submit

And remember how we’re going to get there . . .

• Slowly and steadily, but also surely
• One person at a time
• One dollar at a time
• One simple action at a time
• With each small step building toward the next larger step

The end of the month is here. We did more this month than we did last month. Now we need your financial support to do even more in November. Please . . .

• Start a monthly credit card pledge
• Or make a one-time donation
• You can do so here

Your support is our progress.

Perry Willis
Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation

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.

Nobel’s 5-page informational hand-out reads:  

“Many natural resources, such as fish stocks, pastures, woods, lakes, and groundwater basins are managed as common property. That is, many users have access to the resource in question. If we want to halt the degradation of our natural environment and prevent a repetition of the many collapses of natural-resource stocks experienced in the past, we should learn from the successes and failures of common-property regimes.Ostrom’s work teaches us novel lessons about the deep mechanisms that sustain cooperation in human societies.

“It has frequently been suggested that common ownership entails excessive resource utilization, and that it is advisable to reduce utilization either by imposing government regulations, such as taxes or quotas, or by privatizing the resource. “The theoretical argument is simple: each user weighs private benefits against private costs, thereby neglecting the negative impact on others. However, based on numerous empirical studies of natural-resource management, Elinor Ostrom has concluded that common property is often surprisingly well managed. Thus, the standard theoretical argument against common property is overly simplistic. It neglects the fact that users themselves can both create and enforce rules that mitigate overexploitation. The standard argument also neglects the practical difficulties associated with privatization and government regulation…

“Consider the management of grasslands in the interior of Asia. Scientists have studied satellite images of Mongolia and neighboring areas in China and Russia, where livestock has been feeding on large grassland areas for centuries. Historically, the region was dominated by nomads, who moved their herds on a seasonal basis. In Mongolia, these traditions were largely intact in the mid-1990s, while neighboring areas in China and Russia with closely similar initial conditions had been exposed to radically different governance regimes. There, central government imposed state-owned agricultural collectives, where most users settled permanently. As a result, the land was heavily degraded in both China and Russia.

“In the early 1980s, in an attempt to reverse the degradation, China dissolved the People’s Communes and privatized much of the grassland of Inner Mongolia. Individual households gained ownership of specific plots of land. Again, as in the case of the collectives, this policy encouraged permanent settlement rather than pastoral wandering, with further land degradation as a result. As satellite images clearly reveal, both socialism and privatization are associated with worse long-term outcomes than those observed in traditional group-based governance.”

Later on, the Nobel committee asks some questions on Oliver Williamson’s work (who shared the prize with Ostrum), which they again regard as novel, though the Austrian school of economics has already addressed their questions.

“Why are there large firms? Couldn’t we all be self-employed, trading our goods and services in the market?… According to Coase, firms tend to emerge whenever transaction costs, i.e., the costs of exchanging goods, services, and money, are lower inside a firm than in the corresponding market. But what exactly are those transaction costs that may tip the balance between markets and hierarchies? While Coase offered tentative suggestions, the question remained elusive…According to Williamson’s theory, large private corporations exist primarily because they are efficient. They are established because they make owners, workers, suppliers, and customers better off than they would be under alternative institutional arrangements.“

Again the Nobel committee appears to be ignorant of David Ricardo’s law of division of labor and the Henry Hazlitt’s work Economics in One Lesson. Ricardo’s law states that, provided people’s production skills are different, an economic gain always results from cooperation, even if person A is more superior than person B in good production. Let me explain briefly using three hypothetical scenarios from a deserted island.

• Anna can collect 10 coconuts/hour OR 6 fish/hour.
• George can collect 6 coconuts/hour OR 10 fish/hour.

It is obvious that Anna has an “absolute advantage” in coconut production, and George has an “absolute advantage” in fish production. If they work separately, say for 4 hours, Anna could collect 20 coconuts and 12 fish, while George could collect 12 coconuts and 20 fish/hour. However if Anna and George team up and spend all their labor on their respective competitive advantages, the same 4 hours yield 40 coconuts and 40 fish, a higher average yield (20 coconuts and 20 fish) than both previously had while working separately.

Now let’s assume that Anna is a superwoman, and has an absolute advantage in BOTH coconuts and fish. Why would she have anything to gain by working with George?  Ricardo’s law holds that working in cooperation will still result in an overall benefit. Let’s see how this works.

• Anna can collect 10 coconuts/hour OR 10 fish/hour.
• George can collect 5 coconuts/hour OR 1 fish/hour.

Working by herself, Anna can produce either 40 coconuts OR 40 fish in four hours. Poor George can only produce either 20 coconuts or 4 fish in the same amount of time. For 8 hours of work collecting each good for 4 hours, their collective output is 60 coconuts and 44 fish.

However, George has a comparative advantage in collecting coconuts since Anna’s production rate is only twice his, while Anna’s tremendous fish production is 10X greater. If George only produces coconuts, he has 40 coconuts produced in 8 hours. However, Anna only has to work 2 hours to produce another 20 coconuts. She can then output 60 fish in the remaining 6 hours. Their combined efforts yielded 60 coconuts and 60 fish, a larger total than either could produce separately. So, here’s the critical part, even though Anna is a superwoman compared with George, she still has a selfish reason to cooperate as it increases the individual wealth of each.

While this example is extremely simplistic, it holds the core logic as to why, given the scarcity of resources and labor in the world, free trade is advantageous to both poor and rich nations alike. Specialization and cooperation, whether between two people or two countries, creates more wealth through trade than either party would have while working in isolation, which is how the modern exchange economy arose.

Williamson’s work does in part answer the Nobel’s second question, “What exactly are those transaction costs that may tip the balance between markets and hierarchies?” Williamson suggests that among other factors, “undesirable political lobbying” may cause imbalances, and he is absolutely correct. In fact, in my humble opinion, the entire field of present-day economics should be renamed “governomics” as the government, by following Keynesian economic principles, is the driving force behind the destruction of capital in the United States.

As a society, we need to move from the destructive themes of the Keynesian model – deficit spending, government ownership of firms, massive inflation of a fiat monetary supply, crony corporatism, central planning, and redistribution of wealth from the people to the military-industrial complex and banking industries. Instead, we could have all of the benefits of the Austrian model separation of the bureaucratic and inefficient government from the economy, sound money and highly reward those who create wealth while sharing the benefits with all of humanity.  (see slides 46-47 here)

I offer my sincere congratulations to both Ostrum and Williamson. Their new research has added to the vast store of human knowledge, and will likely do far more for world peace if applied than the presidency of Barack Obama, as I covered in Part 1. For the sake of my country, I hope I am gravely mistaken.

_______________________________________________________________________

Jake Towne is running for U.S. Congress in Pennsylvania’s 15th District in the 2010 election as a citizen unaffiliated with any political parties. Jake also writes at www.LibertyMaven.com andwww.CampaignForLiberty.com. A novel campaign website where you can comment on articles and start discussions is available at TowneForCongress.com. [Reach the Author Here!]

_______________________________________________________________________

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

As always, unlike the NFL, the author grants full permission to allow any accounts of, rebroadcasts, retransmissions, repostings of this article to your blog or anywhere else in order to promote the Restoration of our Republic.

Veritas numquam perit. Veritas odit moras. Veritas vincit. Truth never perishes. Truth hates delay. Truth conquers.

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito. Do not give in to evil but proceed ever more boldly against it.

Originally published October 13, 2009, at http://towneforcongress.com/economy/barack-obama-elinor-ostrum-and-the-nobel-prize-part-12

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.

Has the President done the most or best work for “the holding and promotion of peace congresses”? I would say not. Led by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, America has ignored the advice I gave last year and simply proceeded with the typical Bushian “gunboat diplomacy” and the same old options of bombs or sanctions, sanctions or bombs, as can be seen by the relations with Iran, North Korea, and even Somalian pirates.

Now, it appears the Nobel Committee did infer that this award is payment in advance to ‘pressure’ Obama’s future actions. This logic is downright ridiculous. As a former engineering supervisor, every single award I ever gave was well-earned since to do otherwise would encourage lackadaisical behaviour not only in the awardee, but in the rest of the department and company.

Please do not think I am being overly tough on the President – if McCain was receiving the Peace Prize I would be writing the same article. It is a stark truth that America’s foreign policy simply has not changed whatsoever – even if America’s image has been polished by the President’s well-honed oratory skills and charismatic persona.

It is also noteworthy to review those who, in my humble opinion, have earned a Peace Prize. Gandhi, a hero of mine, never received one – although Martin Luther King, Jr. and Aung San Suu Kyi, both people I admire, did. The 1993 award to Nelson Mandela and F.W. de Klerk was also fitting when apartheid broke apart in South Africa. However, some of the Nobel laureates have been quite undeserving.

American President Woodrow Wilson was one of these. After winning his 1916 re-election on the slogan “He Kept Us Out of War,” Wilson promptly plunge us into WWI with the weak justification of the sinking of the British cargo ship Lusitania which was secretly carrying munitions from the USA to England and drowned 128 Americans. WWI would cost America 130,274 dead.

In return for founding the League of Nations (which the USA wisely never joined) and proclaiming to the world that WWI was the “war to end all wars,” Wilson received the award in 1920 after one of the most horrific diplomacy efforts in history – the Treaty of Versailles, which in effect lit a 20-year fuse which exploded into WWII.

One of the lesser known Americans to win the Peace Prize was Elihu Root, our Secretary of War from 110 years ago. Root and his cabal restructured the entire disorganized state militia systeminto the precursor of today’s National Guard, which is very submissive to federal influence and control. Thanks in good part to Root, the National Guard now patrols the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan instead of America’s sieve-like borders.

The Peace Price was awarded to Root in 1912. When WWI broke out several years later, Root, now a former Secretary of State, opposed Wilson’s initial policy of neutrality and helped drive America to war. At the apex of a stellar bureaucratic career, Root became a US Senator and helped pass the infamous “Income Tax” Amendment.

Well, with all the tough words I have for the President, perhaps I should recommend a worthy replacement. Has anyone heard of Malalai Joya, whom I saluted as the Thomas Paine of Afghanistan? Fortunately, she is still alive despite the escalation of the war by the Obama administration this year. You have probably never heard of her – even though she is a Afghan woman who favors peace, justice, democracy and human rights – because she represents her people by being deadset against the American occupation.

Obama stated the award “must be shared” with everyone who strives for “justice and dignity.” However, no one should expect a cut of Obama’s $10,000,000 SEK prize money anytime soon. Perhaps Obama will donate this to help pay off the national debt or as a down payment on the next stimulus plan? Which brings me to two other lesser-known Americans, Elinor Ostrom, a political scientist, and Oliver Williamson, the “economist most cited by noneconomists,” who just won the 2009 Nobel for Economics which I will save for Part 2.

_______________________________________________________________________

Jake Towne is running for U.S. Congress in Pennsylvania’s 15th District in the 2010 election as a citizen unaffiliated with any political parties. Jake also writes at www.LibertyMaven.com andwww.CampaignForLiberty.com. A novel campaign website where you can comment on articles and start discussions is available at TowneForCongress.com. [Reach the Author Here!]

_______________________________________________________________________

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

As always, unlike the NFL, the author grants full permission to allow any accounts of, rebroadcasts, retransmissions, repostings of this article to your blog or anywhere else in order to promote the Restoration of our Republic.

Veritas numquam perit. Veritas odit moras. Veritas vincit. Truth never perishes. Truth hates delay. Truth conquers.

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito. Do not give in to evil but proceed ever more boldly against it.

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.”

Then a week later, Greenwald posted an update, saying:

“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?”

Indeed.

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.

Louis Armstrong’s famous song “What A Wonderful World” is now officially satire.

Maybe the Nobel Prize Committee was afraid of being called racist?

Or maybe it was just another giant middle finger to former President George W. Bush. Apparently, he is now being blamed for Obama winning the prize by at least one source.

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.

Here is a quite appropriate reaction from a student in Kabul:

“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.”

Exactly Ahmad, Exactly.

In an interview on Sunday, George Stephanopoulos grilled President Obama by asking the rather obvious question, “Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money [to buy insurance], fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?”

Jeff Jacoby’s op-ed on Boston.com discusses the president’s response: