Laissez-faire

I feel like I haven’t criticized the Democratic presidential candidates nearly enough, so I’ll try to catch up a little:

1. Either Hillary has a lot of people confused about her stance on war, or her anti-war supporters are truly just anti-Republican war. I think since she sat by in silent approval for so long, while her husband rained bombs down on Iraq, she’s just bored with this war. She now feels it’s time to move on to another one.

2. John Edwards must find it easier to promote socialized/fascist healthcare by remaining ignorant of the horrendous effects it has on other countries — for instance Cuba.

3. Obama creates much of the same confusion Hillary does. (more here)

4. Listen to the weasels answer this question on whether or not women should be required to register for the draft as men are. I wonder if I’m the only one who found it strange that every single one of them who answered said yes, they should be required to register, but then stated their opposition for the draft. What exactly is the point in supporting draft registration if you oppose a draft. Maybe it’s so they can call people up for “universal national service.” “Shared experience?” “Public service academy?” This reeks of totalitarian propaganda, and frankly it disgusts me. If they were against the draft in principle, they would have denounced registration for anyone and slavery of any form, regardless of its euphemistic designation.

What a crooked bunch of phonies.

Although the market took much of the blame for the recently bumpy economy, Ron Paul points out, the true cause of such economic uncertainty:

The truth is that business involves risk, and businesses that miscalculate risk should be liquidated, so their assets can be reallocated to businesses that correctly judge risk and make profits. Instead, the Fed has injected $64 billion into the jittery markets, effectively amounting to a bailout that keeps these malinvestments afloat, but eventually they will become the undoing of our economy.

In addition to the negative reactions in financial markets, many Americans have taken on too much personal debt owing to exotic mortgage products and artificially low interest rates. Unfortunately, these families are now in the position of losing their homes in unprecedented numbers as the teaser rates expire and the real bills are coming due.

This temporary fix, provided by the Federal Reserve, will only delay much worse economic woes. Fiat money can be created from nothing, but wealth cannot. We should expect the value of the dollar to continue its downward trend while businesses are rewarded for failure.

On a closely related topic, I recently found an episode of Duck Tales; a cartoon that I watched when I was younger. This particular episode had stuck in my memory as a simplified lesson on the consequences of an inflated money supply. I don’t think it’s uncommon for a child (or an adult for that matter) to wonder why we can’t just print more money and inject it into the economy as a way to boost prosperity. This cartoon provided me with a clear and reasonable explanation of why this method, in the end, would not achieve the intended goal. With the little video editing knowledge I have, I put together a video of the relevant parts of the episode and posted it on youtube. As silly and exaggerated as it is, I hope it serves as a lesson to those who think inflation will create wealth.

???????????

Wait, don’t tell me: Because terrorists flew planes into the World Trade Center, everything that Cheney said in 1994 suddenly became irrelevant…?

Quagmire
Regime change
Casualties

…i’m afraid not. I take back any defense of this man that I have ever made. He knew very well the disastrous consequences of this war. Doesn’t anyone else feel completely betrayed by our political leaders?

Laura Ingraham, the MC at the Iowa Republican Straw Poll on Saturday, lost the respect of many people when she introduced Congressman Ron Paul by making snide and ignorant remarks, attacking his policy and his supporters. All the other candidates were given a respectable welcome by Ingraham. In addition to nasty comments directed at Paul’s supporters, she criticized his proposition to grant Bush the authority to issue letters of marque and reprisal to capture, dead or alive, those responsible for the events of September 11th. Aside from her introduction being rude and unprofessional, it revealed her ignorance on the matter.

Bruno Somerset explains letters of marque and reprisal like this:

“Article I, Section 8, Clauses 10 and 11 grant Congress the power to offer a bounty and appoint stealth warriors, private companies and individuals, to capture or kill an enemy such as Osama bin Laden and his fellow terrorists, as well as seize their property. Two hundred years ago the founding fathers saw the need for ways to capture or kill those who threatened us, and provided a way to do so without having to go to war.”

Despite what many politicians would like you to believe, Terrorism is not a new enemy that can be demolished with a deluge of brute force. Terrorism is a tactic or an idea; it has existed, probably, since man existed on earth; and will likely always exist. A tactic, unlike the military of a particular country or alliance of countries, cannot be defeated with the use of force. That is precisely why the aggression used by the United States, in an attempt to eliminate terrorism, is having an effect opposite its intention. Instead of decreasing terrorism, they are fueling the flames of hatred and increasing the incentive to use terrorism as means to an end.

Since its conception The United States faced acts of terrorism. However, the term terrorism was not used: Terrorist were instead referred to as pirates. Private organizations or individuals seeking the reward issued through marque and reprisal, known as privateers, were largely successful in bringing pirates to justice without deepening conflict. Privateers were also successful in seizing nearly 300 British ships during the the Revolutionary War.

Congress and the President ignored Ron Paul’s suggestion, and we will all be paying for it for a long time. Instead of focusing on capturing Osama, the effort was diverted, and now creating more of what was to be eliminated.

So along with an apology to Dr. Paul, Ingraham should also consider doing a bit more research before making such arrant criticisms.

I came across this blog post, and thought it was worth sharing.

“When we have so much poverty in this country, why are you going to other countries to help?”

It’s a good question. I told him that it comes down to levels. In the countries I helped support, like Burma and Cambodia, the poorest in the U.S. would be middle class in those countries. I told him about bad water supplies, parents selling children to survive… you get the idea. The real question is, “If it’s so bad out there, why did I come back.”

Well, it’s like this. America used to be the first among the world leaders. First in morality. First in innovation. First in progressive thoughts. Other countries looked to us for direction on any number of things. We were a shining example - we didn’t have to do anything except be Americans.

These days, other countries fear us. They despise us. By our own actions we are becoming isolated from the rest of the world. We’re no longer first, but we pretend we are, and have to constantly prove that “We’re number 1!”. And if you have to prove it, it ain’t true.

That’s why I came back. I can remember when we were respected instead of feared. I can remember when we held a moral high ground - when the idea of torture was not even considered. If we lose our way, the ramifications are far reaching - our mistakes extend all the way across the oceans to children in third world countries.

The author, while explaining why she volunteers in other countries, asks herself another question: Basically, why does she feel her time is suddenly better spent volunteering for the Ron Paul campaign? What a wonderful and logical explanation.

During the ABC News, Republican debate yesterday morning, Tom Tancredo defended a foolhardy comment he made earlier in the week when he stated that he would bomb Mecca and other Muslim holy sites in response to another terrorist attack. Tommy Thompson responded correctly by claiming that such actions would be counterproductive, uniting millions of Muslims against the United States. There were no apparent disagreements from any of the candidates and I think most people would agree with Thompson’s position.

Why is it then, that they can’t comprehend that our presence in the Middle East — the almost ceaseless bombing under both Bush administrations and maybe even more so (prior to the Iraq War) under the Clinton administration — has created a sense of hatred toward The United States? The terrorist organizations have told us in simple terms that their attacks are a response to our meddling in their land which they view as sacred and holy. Why can’t they admit that invading Iraq strengthened this hatred, and increased terrorist attacks?

This foreign policy of intervention has the same consequences as the irresponsible plan Tancredo suggested. Thompson was correct to point out the flaw in his approach. Now why can’t he apply that concept to the rest of his positions.

Ron Paul is the only candidate that consistently applies this type of logic while shaping his positions on these issues. What Thompson was referring to was blowback; the same blowback that Ron Paul referenced when discussing the reasons for the attacks on the World Trade Center, during a previous debate.

I suppose people are starting to put all of this together:

click on the image to see the updated results. Ron Paul’s votes continue to increase!

In case you missed the debate and want to see it:
part 1 of 9
the other parts