Last week the financial markets were roiled by Standard & Poor’s announcement that they will change their outlook on the fiscal health of the United States over the next two years from “stable” to “negative”. The administration decried this decision as political. However, it seems the only political thing about this decision is the fact that it took so long. The Washington Post recently reported that the White House and the Treasury Department put tremendous pressure on S&P not to do this.
However, if S&P made its ratings based on political pressures rather than economic reality, it would cease to have any relevance to the business community. Even if S&P delayed its announcement that U.S. government bond market would be downgraded, at some point it would become obvious that the finances of this country are out of control and our leadership is out of touch. All credibility would be lost if S&P simply continued to assign U.S. debt a AAA rating.
S&P noted in its announcement that negotiations among leaders in Washington to address deficit concerns did not sound promising, and expressed skepticism that politicians could agree to any viable budget compromise. Of course this has been obvious for years but in the midst of the current debate over raising the debt limit it is perhaps the wake-up call that Washington needs. For decades politicians and government officials have been able to maintain their denial about our real financial situation, patching the system together by passing emergency and supplemental funding bills, issuing more debt, and allowing the Federal Reserve and foreign creditors to paper over deficits with more monetary expansion. I’ve said many times the real day of reckoning comes when fiscal and monetary tricks no longer work and there are no buyers for our debt.
Even the most conservative budget that has been proposed by Republican leadership requires raising the debt ceiling by an additional $9 trillion by 2021. This demonstrates absolutely that no one in power right now has any real intention of addressing our spending problems or paying down the debt. They simply expect to continue to borrow and run up more debt forever, without limit. Yet they always imagine our dollar will have value no matter how many we print. This expectation is foolish and naïve. I guarantee that those buying our debt are not foolish and naïve enough to go along with this charade forever.
The S&P announcement may just be the harbinger of economic realities acting as a restraint on government expansion. Government is not anxious to cap its own growth, in spite of misnomers like “debt limit” or “deficit reduction”. Government will continue to grow like a cancer, sapping our country of its wealth and freedom until the laws of economics no longer can be ignored.
Monday
BUDGET CUTS ARE MEANINGLESS WITHOUT FED TRANSPARENCY
Congress focused on issues surrounding government spending this week as talk of deficits, the national debt, and the debt limit saturated the airwaves. This is a positive development. In years past, there was very little concern over how much was spent here in Washington, how it was spent, or how much of our gross domestic product was being consumed by government. That blissful ignorance naturally resulted in decades of government spending with impunity, bringing us to where we are today: trillions in debt with astronomical entitlement obligations that will be impossible to fulfill in the not too distant future. So it is a good thing that there is so much political pressure now on our leaders to actually put the brakes on runaway spending.
However, even the most generous estimate of the spending cut passed this week – $38.5 billion – is a paltry 3.5% of the $1.05 trillion in spending through the next 5 months. This hardly makes a dent in our government's mountain of debt. Even worse than that, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stripped away the accounting sleights of hand and scored it as only $352 million in cuts, which works out to less than half of one percent of spending. Still, the tiniest cut is better than the massive increases we have become accustomed to in federal budgets.
Of course, our disastrous wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are not even included in this budget as they are considered emergency spending. They constitute $3.3 billion in spending in the same period of time, so they more than cancel out any small cuts the warmongers may crow about.
I voted against the legislation funding government for the remainder of this year, as well as next year's budget because, as in years past, government spends far too much on unconstitutional programs. In spite of any rhetoric about fiscal responsibility, a point three percent (0.3%) cut does not suddenly make the rest of the spending constitutional or responsible. And, if the American people do not continue to hold the politicians' feet to the fire, you can be sure we will see massive spending increases again in the future.
In addition to Congress' spending, many Americans are finally paying attention to the spending done by unelected banking cronies at the Federal Reserve. Recently the Fed was forced to reveal some details of loans given out during the financial crisis of 2008 and they are truly shocking. Matt Taibbi points out in a recent Rolling Stone article that two very well-connected Wall Street wives got together and formed a real estate investment company that garnered $220 million in so-called "loans" (free money) from the Fed. Compare this number to the $352 million in spending cuts the CBO says are in the current budget! A few months later, one of the wives bought a $13.5 million personal residence with her husband, the CEO of Morgan Stanley.
The unelected, unaccountable Fed hands out as much or more money this way as our federal government spends, and yet receives hardly any attention. This is why I believe transparency of the Fed is a critical step to regaining control of our financial situation in this country. We can never get meaningful reforms if all eyes are on the $352 million so-called cuts, and transactions like the $220 million given to Wall Street cronies are done in the shadows. This is why I have reintroduced my Audit the Fed bill to this Congress. HR 1207 is now HR 459 and is essential to true fiscal reform and responsibility.
However, even the most generous estimate of the spending cut passed this week – $38.5 billion – is a paltry 3.5% of the $1.05 trillion in spending through the next 5 months. This hardly makes a dent in our government's mountain of debt. Even worse than that, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stripped away the accounting sleights of hand and scored it as only $352 million in cuts, which works out to less than half of one percent of spending. Still, the tiniest cut is better than the massive increases we have become accustomed to in federal budgets.
Of course, our disastrous wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are not even included in this budget as they are considered emergency spending. They constitute $3.3 billion in spending in the same period of time, so they more than cancel out any small cuts the warmongers may crow about.
I voted against the legislation funding government for the remainder of this year, as well as next year's budget because, as in years past, government spends far too much on unconstitutional programs. In spite of any rhetoric about fiscal responsibility, a point three percent (0.3%) cut does not suddenly make the rest of the spending constitutional or responsible. And, if the American people do not continue to hold the politicians' feet to the fire, you can be sure we will see massive spending increases again in the future.
In addition to Congress' spending, many Americans are finally paying attention to the spending done by unelected banking cronies at the Federal Reserve. Recently the Fed was forced to reveal some details of loans given out during the financial crisis of 2008 and they are truly shocking. Matt Taibbi points out in a recent Rolling Stone article that two very well-connected Wall Street wives got together and formed a real estate investment company that garnered $220 million in so-called "loans" (free money) from the Fed. Compare this number to the $352 million in spending cuts the CBO says are in the current budget! A few months later, one of the wives bought a $13.5 million personal residence with her husband, the CEO of Morgan Stanley.
The unelected, unaccountable Fed hands out as much or more money this way as our federal government spends, and yet receives hardly any attention. This is why I believe transparency of the Fed is a critical step to regaining control of our financial situation in this country. We can never get meaningful reforms if all eyes are on the $352 million so-called cuts, and transactions like the $220 million given to Wall Street cronies are done in the shadows. This is why I have reintroduced my Audit the Fed bill to this Congress. HR 1207 is now HR 459 and is essential to true fiscal reform and responsibility.
THE NANNY STATE CAN'T LAST
Congress and the administration refused to seriously consider the problem of government spending. Despite the fear-mongering, a government shutdown would not have been as bad as claimed.
It is encouraging that some in Washington seem to be insisting on reduced spending, which is definitely a step in the right direction, but only one step. We have miles to go before we can even come close to a solution, and it will involve completely redefining the role of government in our lives and on the world stage. A compromise was struck at the last minute, but until Democrats agree to rein in entitlement spending, and Republicans back off the blank checks to the military industrial complex, it all amounts to political gamesmanship.
Unfortunately, the compromises always seem to be just the opposite. Instead of the left agreeing to cut social spending and the right agreeing to cut military spending, the right agrees to more welfare and the left agrees to more warfare. In spite of all the rhetoric, we will go deeper in debt, the Fed will print more money, and the value of the dollar will continue to plummet. How long will it be before foreigners stop buying our debt, and hyperinflation arrives? Throughout history, empires have always overextended themselves through conquests and wealth transfers leading to eventual collapse, from the Roman Empire to the Soviet Union. We are headed in the same direction and it seems only the chaos of the collapse of the dollar will stop the spending spree. Arguing over funding for Planned Parenthood and NPR, though important, only shows that leadership in Washington either won't face reality, or don't understand how serious the problem is.
Of course, an actual government collapse would create serious problems for many people who have come to depend on government payments for healthcare, retirement income, their children's education, and even food and housing. However, these so-called entitlement programs are unconstitutional to begin with and have engendered a culture of dependence on wealth transfer payments that is out of control. It concerns me greatly that instead of dealing seriously with our situation, so many in Washington would rather allow the chaos that will ensue when all of the dependent people are suddenly cut off. Better to look reality squarely in the face and tell people the difficult truth that government is simply not capable of managing people's lives from cradle to grave as was foolishly promised. We face trillions in deficits with any of the budgets under consideration. Keeping those promises is, sadly, just not one of our options in the long run. Better to admit the nanny state is coming to an end and we are no longer working on "compromises" but a transition - to a sustainable way of life, one that respects the constitution, the rule of law and property rights.
It is encouraging that some in Washington seem to be insisting on reduced spending, which is definitely a step in the right direction, but only one step. We have miles to go before we can even come close to a solution, and it will involve completely redefining the role of government in our lives and on the world stage. A compromise was struck at the last minute, but until Democrats agree to rein in entitlement spending, and Republicans back off the blank checks to the military industrial complex, it all amounts to political gamesmanship.
Unfortunately, the compromises always seem to be just the opposite. Instead of the left agreeing to cut social spending and the right agreeing to cut military spending, the right agrees to more welfare and the left agrees to more warfare. In spite of all the rhetoric, we will go deeper in debt, the Fed will print more money, and the value of the dollar will continue to plummet. How long will it be before foreigners stop buying our debt, and hyperinflation arrives? Throughout history, empires have always overextended themselves through conquests and wealth transfers leading to eventual collapse, from the Roman Empire to the Soviet Union. We are headed in the same direction and it seems only the chaos of the collapse of the dollar will stop the spending spree. Arguing over funding for Planned Parenthood and NPR, though important, only shows that leadership in Washington either won't face reality, or don't understand how serious the problem is.
Of course, an actual government collapse would create serious problems for many people who have come to depend on government payments for healthcare, retirement income, their children's education, and even food and housing. However, these so-called entitlement programs are unconstitutional to begin with and have engendered a culture of dependence on wealth transfer payments that is out of control. It concerns me greatly that instead of dealing seriously with our situation, so many in Washington would rather allow the chaos that will ensue when all of the dependent people are suddenly cut off. Better to look reality squarely in the face and tell people the difficult truth that government is simply not capable of managing people's lives from cradle to grave as was foolishly promised. We face trillions in deficits with any of the budgets under consideration. Keeping those promises is, sadly, just not one of our options in the long run. Better to admit the nanny state is coming to an end and we are no longer working on "compromises" but a transition - to a sustainable way of life, one that respects the constitution, the rule of law and property rights.
Tuesday
WHAT I THINK......LEW ROCKWELL
The worst effect of the state is intellectual. It puts our brains in a prison, simply by defining the terms in which we are permitted to think and speak. The one non-negotiable point becomes the state itself. You are permitted to argue about what the state’s priorities ought to be (bombs or butter), but not question the fundamental model of a state-dominated society.
Believers in human liberty have played along with this game for too long. They’ve done this for decades. Sometimes they tack right and sometimes they tack left. What they should be doing is upending the game board itself. They need boldly to make that fundamental claim of the old liberal tradition, that society orders itself without the state. Liberty is the answer in every area of life.
This is precisely what Ron Paul does in his amazing book to be released April 19: Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom. It begins with the big themes about what liberty is and what it is not. It is not, for example, something that is created by "public policy." It is not a piece of legislation. It does not emerge from the political process. Precisely the opposite: liberty is the absence of all these things. It is what results in the absence of state interference. Liberty’s only fundamental requirement is that the state let society alone to develop, grow, and prosper.
This point of view is hardly heard at all in the political debate today, which is otherwise hamstrung by partisan wrangling of what the state should be doing. By the time you finish the introduction to Ron Paul’s book, you realize that you are going to be treated to a completely new and radical form of thinking about politics, one that reimagines the current world in the same way that Jefferson reimagined his world, and became the real father of this country.
What’s especially brilliant about Ron’s new book is that he doesn’t just deal in abstractions. As the title suggests, he takes on 50 difficult areas of politics today and shines a new light of liberty on each of them. I think I’m correct in anticipating most readers’ reaction: there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. But the end effect will be that beautiful thing: enlightenment.
The book is arranged alphabetically, which makes the subject of abortion the very first entry. Where do you suppose Ron Paul stands on this issue? Let’s just say that if you think you have followed the conventional debate, you are in for something completely different.
Ron is a vehement opponent of abortion, and he explains why in ways that will bring readers around to his perspective (which is that of a man who has delivered thousands of babies). Then he moves to the entirely different area of public policy, pointing out that a centralized edict on this subject runs contrary to every moral and practical dictate of human liberty. A centralized pro-life policy is as wrong as a centralized mandatory-legalization policy. He wants a repeal of Roe. He doesn’t want state funding. But if a community wants to permit the practice, while he would certainly oppose that at the local level, his view is that the federal government should have nothing to say about it either way.
His position is shocking and out of the mainstream, to be sure, but it is also supremely practical. In innumerable communities around the country today, abortion clinics compete with alternative women’s clinics to provide for those in need of pregnancy services. In fact, if you want to look where the pro-life movement has seen gains, it is not in the area of political organization but in providing a market service for those who are seeking an alternative to abortion. This is a case in point of how liberty serves to work out our core disagreements.
Now, this is only the first issue and there are 49 others that he deals with, and each with a perspective that is surprising, practical, moral, and balanced in a fascinating way. Unless you are seriously schooled in libertarian theory, you might find it difficult to anticipate what he will say. Even if you get the libertarian point of view, Ron's argument and evidence will surprise you.
Consider his writings on privacy, for example. He argues that it is a violation of human rights for the state to invade our privacy. At the same time, he argues that it is contrary to liberty for the state to restrict the right of private businesses to use cameras, websites to collect information on us, or businesses to investigate credit histories of their employees. As one application, he favors total drug legalization but defends the rights of business to drug test.
If anyone else in public life has taken this position – which Ron, as always, makes very persuasive and compelling in his narrative – I’m not aware of it.
So on it goes through so many issues. He opposes war with the passion of the Old Left. But he sounds like the Old Right on issues of taxes and regulations. His writings on terrorism mark him out as a real radical against the state’s stupid policies (he says that terrorism is a result of U.S. foreign policy). At the same time, he has no problem with private discrimination on any grounds: sex, race, disability, or whatever. On marriage, he upholds the traditional definition (man and woman before God) but favors free association: "Why not tolerate everybody's definition as long as neither side uses force to impose its views?"
He gets into sticky areas like the history of Zionism, and here again, I can promise you that you have never heard this point of view (he celebrates the original cultural movement but condemns the manner in which later political ambitions corrupted a great cause). On trade, he is at once a radical proponent of universal commercial rights and an opponent of legislated treaties like Nafta. On gun control, he favors it for the government and opposes it for the individual.
What drive this book forward on page after page are the relentless surprises, the truth-telling logic, and the speak-from-the heart tone of the prose. You might agree with all, half, or none. But there is no way you will think about any of these issues in the same way after being schooled in the Paulian point of view.
This much is clear: there has never been a book like this to appear from any U.S. political figure. It contains not a hint of political posturing or pandering. Its purpose is not to vault Ron to the top of a presidential ticket. The ambition of the book can be modestly described as educational, but the effect could be much more. This is the book we’ve needed to blow up the rhetorical structure of generations of political activism and replace it with a completely new vision of liberty.
This is why the book is called Liberty Defined. When you are lost and confused about a subject, the right way forward is to begin by defining your terms. At last, one man has done just this. He has defined liberty. And then he has done more: he has shown us that liberty is right, liberty works, liberty is the only way forward.
With this marvelous and passionate book, Ron Paul has really made a mark in the literary history of our times. It is a book of courage, intelligence, and vision. It should become our credo. Ron could be the founding father of a new and free America and world.
Believers in human liberty have played along with this game for too long. They’ve done this for decades. Sometimes they tack right and sometimes they tack left. What they should be doing is upending the game board itself. They need boldly to make that fundamental claim of the old liberal tradition, that society orders itself without the state. Liberty is the answer in every area of life.
This is precisely what Ron Paul does in his amazing book to be released April 19: Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom. It begins with the big themes about what liberty is and what it is not. It is not, for example, something that is created by "public policy." It is not a piece of legislation. It does not emerge from the political process. Precisely the opposite: liberty is the absence of all these things. It is what results in the absence of state interference. Liberty’s only fundamental requirement is that the state let society alone to develop, grow, and prosper.
This point of view is hardly heard at all in the political debate today, which is otherwise hamstrung by partisan wrangling of what the state should be doing. By the time you finish the introduction to Ron Paul’s book, you realize that you are going to be treated to a completely new and radical form of thinking about politics, one that reimagines the current world in the same way that Jefferson reimagined his world, and became the real father of this country.
What’s especially brilliant about Ron’s new book is that he doesn’t just deal in abstractions. As the title suggests, he takes on 50 difficult areas of politics today and shines a new light of liberty on each of them. I think I’m correct in anticipating most readers’ reaction: there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. But the end effect will be that beautiful thing: enlightenment.
The book is arranged alphabetically, which makes the subject of abortion the very first entry. Where do you suppose Ron Paul stands on this issue? Let’s just say that if you think you have followed the conventional debate, you are in for something completely different.
Ron is a vehement opponent of abortion, and he explains why in ways that will bring readers around to his perspective (which is that of a man who has delivered thousands of babies). Then he moves to the entirely different area of public policy, pointing out that a centralized edict on this subject runs contrary to every moral and practical dictate of human liberty. A centralized pro-life policy is as wrong as a centralized mandatory-legalization policy. He wants a repeal of Roe. He doesn’t want state funding. But if a community wants to permit the practice, while he would certainly oppose that at the local level, his view is that the federal government should have nothing to say about it either way.
His position is shocking and out of the mainstream, to be sure, but it is also supremely practical. In innumerable communities around the country today, abortion clinics compete with alternative women’s clinics to provide for those in need of pregnancy services. In fact, if you want to look where the pro-life movement has seen gains, it is not in the area of political organization but in providing a market service for those who are seeking an alternative to abortion. This is a case in point of how liberty serves to work out our core disagreements.
Now, this is only the first issue and there are 49 others that he deals with, and each with a perspective that is surprising, practical, moral, and balanced in a fascinating way. Unless you are seriously schooled in libertarian theory, you might find it difficult to anticipate what he will say. Even if you get the libertarian point of view, Ron's argument and evidence will surprise you.
Consider his writings on privacy, for example. He argues that it is a violation of human rights for the state to invade our privacy. At the same time, he argues that it is contrary to liberty for the state to restrict the right of private businesses to use cameras, websites to collect information on us, or businesses to investigate credit histories of their employees. As one application, he favors total drug legalization but defends the rights of business to drug test.
If anyone else in public life has taken this position – which Ron, as always, makes very persuasive and compelling in his narrative – I’m not aware of it.
So on it goes through so many issues. He opposes war with the passion of the Old Left. But he sounds like the Old Right on issues of taxes and regulations. His writings on terrorism mark him out as a real radical against the state’s stupid policies (he says that terrorism is a result of U.S. foreign policy). At the same time, he has no problem with private discrimination on any grounds: sex, race, disability, or whatever. On marriage, he upholds the traditional definition (man and woman before God) but favors free association: "Why not tolerate everybody's definition as long as neither side uses force to impose its views?"
He gets into sticky areas like the history of Zionism, and here again, I can promise you that you have never heard this point of view (he celebrates the original cultural movement but condemns the manner in which later political ambitions corrupted a great cause). On trade, he is at once a radical proponent of universal commercial rights and an opponent of legislated treaties like Nafta. On gun control, he favors it for the government and opposes it for the individual.
What drive this book forward on page after page are the relentless surprises, the truth-telling logic, and the speak-from-the heart tone of the prose. You might agree with all, half, or none. But there is no way you will think about any of these issues in the same way after being schooled in the Paulian point of view.
This much is clear: there has never been a book like this to appear from any U.S. political figure. It contains not a hint of political posturing or pandering. Its purpose is not to vault Ron to the top of a presidential ticket. The ambition of the book can be modestly described as educational, but the effect could be much more. This is the book we’ve needed to blow up the rhetorical structure of generations of political activism and replace it with a completely new vision of liberty.
This is why the book is called Liberty Defined. When you are lost and confused about a subject, the right way forward is to begin by defining your terms. At last, one man has done just this. He has defined liberty. And then he has done more: he has shown us that liberty is right, liberty works, liberty is the only way forward.
With this marvelous and passionate book, Ron Paul has really made a mark in the literary history of our times. It is a book of courage, intelligence, and vision. It should become our credo. Ron could be the founding father of a new and free America and world.
Monday
THE FED UNDERMINES FOREIGN POLICY
I was both surprised and pleased when the Supreme Court upheld lower court decisions requiring the Federal Reserve Bank to comply with requests for information made by Bloomberg under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). Bloomberg simply wanted to know who received loans from the Fed's discount window in the aftermath of the 2008 financial market crisis, and how much each entity received. Surely this is basic information that should be available to every American taxpayer. But the Fed fought tooth and nail all the way to the Supreme Court to preserve their privileged secrecy. However, transparency and openness won the day. There are some 29,000 pages to decipher, but a few points stand out initially.
The Fed lent huge sums of our money to foreign banks. This in itself was not surprising, but the actual amount is staggering! In one week at the height of the crisis, about 70% of the money doled out went to foreign banks. We were told that bailing out banks was going to stave off a massive depression. Depression for whom? We now know that the Fed's bailout had nothing to do with helping the American people, who have gotten their depression anyway with continued job losses and foreclosures. But now we learn that a good deal of the money did not even help American banks!
In light of recent world events, perhaps the most staggering revelation is that quite a bit of money went to the Arab Banking Corp., in which the Libyan Central Bank owned about a third of its stock. This occurred while Libya, a declared state sponsor of terrorism, was under strict economic sanctions! How erratic the US must appear when we shower a dictator alternately with dollars and bombs! Also, we must consider the possibility that those loans are inadvertently financing weapons Gaddaffi is using against his own people and western militaries. This would not be the first time the covert activities of the Fed have undermined not only our economy and the value of the dollar, but our foreign policy as well.
Of course I can't say I'm surprised by the poor quality of the data provided by the Fed. The category of each loan made, whether from the "Primary Discount Window", the "Secondary Discount Window," or "Other Extensions of Credit," is redacted. Thus, we don't know with certainty how much discount window lending was provided to foreign banks and how much was merely "other extensions of credit". Also, some of the numbers simply do not seem to add up. We are of course still wading through the massive document dump, but it does seem as though several billions of dollars are unaccounted for.
As the world economy continues to falter in spite of - or rather because of - cheap money doled out by the Federal Reserve, its ability to deceive financial markets and American taxpayers is coming to an end. People are beginning to realize that when the fed in effect doubles the worldwide supply of US dollars in a relatively short time, it has the effect of stealing half your money through reduced purchasing power. Rapid inflation will continue as trillions in new money and credit recently created by the Fed flood into the commodity markets.
It is becoming more and more obvious that the Fed operates for the benefit of a few privileged banks, banks that never suffer for bad decisions they make. Quite the opposite - as we have seen since October 2008, under our current monetary system politically-connected banks are paid to make bad decisions.
The Fed lent huge sums of our money to foreign banks. This in itself was not surprising, but the actual amount is staggering! In one week at the height of the crisis, about 70% of the money doled out went to foreign banks. We were told that bailing out banks was going to stave off a massive depression. Depression for whom? We now know that the Fed's bailout had nothing to do with helping the American people, who have gotten their depression anyway with continued job losses and foreclosures. But now we learn that a good deal of the money did not even help American banks!
In light of recent world events, perhaps the most staggering revelation is that quite a bit of money went to the Arab Banking Corp., in which the Libyan Central Bank owned about a third of its stock. This occurred while Libya, a declared state sponsor of terrorism, was under strict economic sanctions! How erratic the US must appear when we shower a dictator alternately with dollars and bombs! Also, we must consider the possibility that those loans are inadvertently financing weapons Gaddaffi is using against his own people and western militaries. This would not be the first time the covert activities of the Fed have undermined not only our economy and the value of the dollar, but our foreign policy as well.
Of course I can't say I'm surprised by the poor quality of the data provided by the Fed. The category of each loan made, whether from the "Primary Discount Window", the "Secondary Discount Window," or "Other Extensions of Credit," is redacted. Thus, we don't know with certainty how much discount window lending was provided to foreign banks and how much was merely "other extensions of credit". Also, some of the numbers simply do not seem to add up. We are of course still wading through the massive document dump, but it does seem as though several billions of dollars are unaccounted for.
As the world economy continues to falter in spite of - or rather because of - cheap money doled out by the Federal Reserve, its ability to deceive financial markets and American taxpayers is coming to an end. People are beginning to realize that when the fed in effect doubles the worldwide supply of US dollars in a relatively short time, it has the effect of stealing half your money through reduced purchasing power. Rapid inflation will continue as trillions in new money and credit recently created by the Fed flood into the commodity markets.
It is becoming more and more obvious that the Fed operates for the benefit of a few privileged banks, banks that never suffer for bad decisions they make. Quite the opposite - as we have seen since October 2008, under our current monetary system politically-connected banks are paid to make bad decisions.
Friday
ANOTHER ILLEGAL WAR
The American people have once again been suckered into an unconstitutional, undeclared, illegal, and unwise war. This is not a war in response to an attack on the United States. This is not a war against a regime that has threatened the United States. This is a preventative war. The president never claimed that any large-scale slaughter of civilians was taking place in Libya. Rather, the president has spent close to a billion dollars – so far – bombing a country because its government might at some point harm its civilians.
The president consulted NATO, the United Nations, and the Arab League for permission and authorization to use US military force against Libya. He ignored the one body that has the legal authority to grant that permission, the US Congress.
While we have not seen credible proof – nor has it been claimed – that the Gaddafi regime has engaged in any large-scale slaughter of Libyan civilians, we see increasing reports of civilians who have been killed in airstrikes by the forces that are supposed to protect them! It seems we may be causing the very problem our intervention was supposed to prevent.
After days of the administration’s public speculation about whether or not to arm the Libyan rebels, we hear from the media that the president already instructed the CIA to arm and assist the rebels several weeks ago. So we have gone from the phony pretext of stopping a massacre of civilians to engaging the US military and covert operatives directly to fight on one side of a civil war.
Who are the rebels we are fighting for in Libya? We don’t fully know. Press reports suggest that there are some 1,000 jihadists fighting on their behalf. Are we arming al Qaeda in Libya? It certainly appears possible.
This is not really a new war. It is in fact a continuation of the neoconservatives' 22-year war to remake the Middle East. Unfortunately the president has ignored the US constitution and decided instead to continue this misguided policy. This is a deeply flawed foreign policy that will only lead to escalation, blowback, and unintended consequences. Ultimately it is leading us to financial catastrophe. We must abandon the fantasy that we can police the world before it’s too late. Congress must stand up and say “no” to this illegal war.
The president consulted NATO, the United Nations, and the Arab League for permission and authorization to use US military force against Libya. He ignored the one body that has the legal authority to grant that permission, the US Congress.
While we have not seen credible proof – nor has it been claimed – that the Gaddafi regime has engaged in any large-scale slaughter of Libyan civilians, we see increasing reports of civilians who have been killed in airstrikes by the forces that are supposed to protect them! It seems we may be causing the very problem our intervention was supposed to prevent.
After days of the administration’s public speculation about whether or not to arm the Libyan rebels, we hear from the media that the president already instructed the CIA to arm and assist the rebels several weeks ago. So we have gone from the phony pretext of stopping a massacre of civilians to engaging the US military and covert operatives directly to fight on one side of a civil war.
Who are the rebels we are fighting for in Libya? We don’t fully know. Press reports suggest that there are some 1,000 jihadists fighting on their behalf. Are we arming al Qaeda in Libya? It certainly appears possible.
This is not really a new war. It is in fact a continuation of the neoconservatives' 22-year war to remake the Middle East. Unfortunately the president has ignored the US constitution and decided instead to continue this misguided policy. This is a deeply flawed foreign policy that will only lead to escalation, blowback, and unintended consequences. Ultimately it is leading us to financial catastrophe. We must abandon the fantasy that we can police the world before it’s too late. Congress must stand up and say “no” to this illegal war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
