Obama's Racial Politics. by Walter E. Williams
There's been
a heap of criticism placed upon President Barack Obama's domestic
policies that have promoted government intrusion and prolonged our
fiscal crisis and his foreign policies that have emboldened our
enemies. Any criticism of Obama pales in comparison with what might
be said about the American people who voted him in to the nation's
highest office.
The Information Problem: Pull Out of Iraq. David Anderson
On February 5, I gave a luncheon talk on the Iraq war at the World Affairs
Council in San Francisco. About 60 people attended. I spoke after fellow Antiwar.com
columnist Ivan Eland. Ivan laid out a plan for partitioning Iraq or at least
having a very weak central government with relatively strong regional governments
representing various factions. The audience was presumed to have read an article
by Anthony
Cordesman titled "Iraq: Strategies for Dealing with Uncertainty"
in Great Decisions, 2008 edition, and I was asked to, among other things, address
his article. What follows is my speech.
I want to start by quoting from a Republican congressman's speech on the floor of the House of Representatives. He gave this speech in opposition to his own Republican President's decision to keep troops in Iraq. I quote him because his speech essentially sums up my opinion. This Congressman stated:
"The fundamental question is: What is the United States' interest in Iraq? It is said we are there to keep the peace. I ask, what peace? It is said we are there to aid the government. I ask, what government? It is said we are there to stabilize the region. I ask, how can the U.S. presence stabilize the region?... The longer we stay in Iraq, the harder it will be for us to leave. We will be trapped by the case we make for having our troops there in the first place.
I want to start by quoting from a Republican congressman's speech on the floor of the House of Representatives. He gave this speech in opposition to his own Republican President's decision to keep troops in Iraq. I quote him because his speech essentially sums up my opinion. This Congressman stated:
"The fundamental question is: What is the United States' interest in Iraq? It is said we are there to keep the peace. I ask, what peace? It is said we are there to aid the government. I ask, what government? It is said we are there to stabilize the region. I ask, how can the U.S. presence stabilize the region?... The longer we stay in Iraq, the harder it will be for us to leave. We will be trapped by the case we make for having our troops there in the first place.
Why Our Currency Will Fail. by Chris Martenson
The idea that
the very same economic forces that are currently plaguing Greece,
et al., are somehow not relevant to the United States' circumstances
does not hold water. As goes the rest of the world, so goes
the US.
When we back up far enough, it is clear that money and debt are there to reflect and be in service to the production of real things by real people, not the other way around. With too much debt relative to production, it is the debt that will suffer. The same is true of money. Neither are magical substances; they are merely markers for real things. When they get out of balance with reality, they lose value, and sometimes even their entire meaning.
When we back up far enough, it is clear that money and debt are there to reflect and be in service to the production of real things by real people, not the other way around. With too much debt relative to production, it is the debt that will suffer. The same is true of money. Neither are magical substances; they are merely markers for real things. When they get out of balance with reality, they lose value, and sometimes even their entire meaning.
Rebellion, Resistance, Renewal … or War?. by Karen Kwiatkowski
I just received
my copy of a great new book entitled Why
Peace edited by Marc Guttman. I am one of many contributors,
and my chapter is titled "If War is the Health of the State,
What is Peace?"
I will share that chapter at a later time, and I encourage you to buy and widely share this fantastic collection. Marc, a friend and a great activist for liberty, has really achieved something special and important in Why Peace.
It occurs to me that when we speak of war, we often confuse justifiable resistance of people to evil with the propaganda-driven fiascos pursued by governments in order to consolidate or expand power, or to satisfy the corporate demands placed on politicians by the organizations, industries or cabals that helped elect them.
In American history we have many examples of this, and the American government, even in its early and more innocent years, was no stranger to state-financed war for this or that friend, ally, or economic interest. Gary North even makes a case that the concept of tax resistance embodied in the Boston Tea Party and sparking the American war of independence, was indeed less a justified popular tax revolt than a war for trade monopoly joined by the nascent American government.
I will share that chapter at a later time, and I encourage you to buy and widely share this fantastic collection. Marc, a friend and a great activist for liberty, has really achieved something special and important in Why Peace.
It occurs to me that when we speak of war, we often confuse justifiable resistance of people to evil with the propaganda-driven fiascos pursued by governments in order to consolidate or expand power, or to satisfy the corporate demands placed on politicians by the organizations, industries or cabals that helped elect them.
In American history we have many examples of this, and the American government, even in its early and more innocent years, was no stranger to state-financed war for this or that friend, ally, or economic interest. Gary North even makes a case that the concept of tax resistance embodied in the Boston Tea Party and sparking the American war of independence, was indeed less a justified popular tax revolt than a war for trade monopoly joined by the nascent American government.
The X and Y Generations and Ron Paul: An Alliance for Our Age. by Donald W. Miller, Jr., MD
Members of
Generation X, born 1962 to 1981, and Generation Y, 1982-2004, are
rallying behind Ron Paul in his run for president. Media commentators
find it odd that people under the age of 40 in the X Generation
and especially voters under age 30 in the Y Generation are so taken
with this unassuming, soft-spoken 76-year-old candidate. Ron Paul
is in the Silent Generation, whose members are now 70 to 87 years
of age (born 1925-1942).
Exit polls show that Ron Paul won the majority of voters under age 40 in the Iowa caucus and in the New Hampshire primary. He received 21.4 percent of the votes in Iowa (first-place Rick Santorum got 24.6 percent) and came in second in New Hampshire with 22.9 percent of the votes (first-place Mitt Romney got 39.3 percent). More voters under age 30 chose Ron Paul over the other candidates in the South Carolina primary and Nevada caucus. He garnered 41 percent of the under 30 vote in Nevada – Mitt Romney got 36 percent; Newt Gingrich, 16 percent; and Rick Santorum, 7 percent. But only a small minority of older people has voted for him, as was especially evident in the Florida Republican primary.
Exit polls show that Ron Paul won the majority of voters under age 40 in the Iowa caucus and in the New Hampshire primary. He received 21.4 percent of the votes in Iowa (first-place Rick Santorum got 24.6 percent) and came in second in New Hampshire with 22.9 percent of the votes (first-place Mitt Romney got 39.3 percent). More voters under age 30 chose Ron Paul over the other candidates in the South Carolina primary and Nevada caucus. He garnered 41 percent of the under 30 vote in Nevada – Mitt Romney got 36 percent; Newt Gingrich, 16 percent; and Rick Santorum, 7 percent. But only a small minority of older people has voted for him, as was especially evident in the Florida Republican primary.
Moscow rules
Syria
Moscow rules
by J.P.P.
SO
MANY remarkable things have sprung from the Arab Spring that it’s
possible to overlook that, in addition to toppling aged tyrants and now
menacing a more youthful one, it has accomplished something that decades
of communism could not: warmth between China and Russia. At the nadir
of that relationship, which came between Krushchev’s denunciation of
Stalin and the Prague Spring, Chairman Mao accused his Russian
counterpart of “patriarchal, arbitrary and tyrannical behaviour”.
Krushchev, reaching deep into the lexicon of Soviet insults, denounced
Mao in turn as an “adventurist deviationist”. Things had become so bad
by July 1964 that relations between the two countries were broken off.How to set Syria free
Arab revolutions
Getting rid of Bashar Assad requires a united opposition, the creation of a safe haven and Western resolve
Why Does U.S. Pay to Protect Prosperous Allies? by Christopher Preble
For some time now, Republican hawks like Sen. John
McCain and Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon have been saying that our
military budget is inadequate for the threats we face. They like to
gripe that President Barack Obama is orchestrating the decline of
American power.
Some of this is pure partisanship. Republicans criticize Democrats
just as Democrats criticized President George W. Bush. The hawks,
though, have a special devotion to the military budget. In their view,
some military spending is good; more is even better. But if overspending
on the military and promoting the United States as global policeman are
benchmarks of approval, they should have little to complain about with
our current president.Never Let Law Profs Near the Oval Office. by Gene Healy
"Surely as a former constitutional law professor,
President Obama must know..." — that's a fairly common refrain whenever
Obama commits another constitutional atrocity.
I've said as much myself — but as a recovering law student, I should
know better. Constitutional law professors should be kept as far away
from nuclear weapons as possible.The skill-sets they bring to the presidency just gives them the sophistry and brazenness necessary to invent new and creative ways of violating the constitutional oath of office.
Highway Robbery by Republicans. by Michael D. Tanner
Anyone still wondering why there is a disconnect
between grassroots limited-government conservatives and the Washington
establishment need look no farther than the latest highway bill
currently making its way through Congress with support from Republican
leaders in both houses.
The Senate version, SB 1813, would cost $109 billion over two years.
The House bill, HR 7, which runs to 847 pages of pork and
special-interest projects, raises the price tag to $260 billion, but
extends it over five years, making it a couple billion cheaper on a
year-by-year basis.Today's highway bills are more about the type of local road construction and maintenance that is properly the province of state and local governments.
The Limits of Monetary Policy Call for Moral, Sound Money. by James A. Dorn
The American public does not like the fact that Fed
chairman Ben Bernanke has vastly expanded the size and scope of the
nation's central bank and bailed out Wall Street while Main Street
suffered. Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), chairman of the Subcommittee on
Domestic Monetary Policy, has even argued for a return to the gold
standard and ultimately the end of central banking in favor of
free-market money.
Although the Federal Reserve is assumed be independent, the reality
is that it is subject to strong political pressure, just like any other
government agency. In an election year, with high unemployment and a
sluggish economy, there will be more voices calling for stimulus than
for constraint. Another round of quantitative easing — that is, the
purchase of government bonds and mortgage-backed securities (MBS) — is
likely, with the objective of reducing longer-term interest rates to
induce spending and growth.
No comments:
Post a Comment