When enough is enough

You can always tell when we’re about to wage another pointless and meaningless war when the WWII and Hitler analogies start appearing. Last time, it was Saddam Hussein who was the next Hitler. Now, it’s the Iranians. It’s almost enough to make you feel sorry for the North Korean regime. They always seem to get left out.

My old buddy Orrin Johnson is even getting in on the act. He has a theory as to what might have happened if Ron Paul had been president in the 1930’s and ‘40’s. Orrin also directs us to the Ace of Spades blog, and as might be predicted, another WWII analogy. This one’s about the Holocaust. Would a President Paul have declared war on Germany to stop the concentration camps? No, he would have done nothing, just as President Roosevelt did. Would President Paul have bombed the train tracks leading to the camps once the war had started? No, he would have used those bombs against the trains going from the munitions factories to the front lines, just as President Roosevelt did.

Politics does indeed make strange bedfellows. Whoever would have thought that Ron Paul would be in the mainstream of military strategy? The fact is, humanitarianism is not a cause for war. It never has been. These WWII analogies are really pretty meaningless. They’re like asking what would happen if George S. Patton had been in charge of British forces at Yorktown, or how many states would we have if Genghis Khan had been King of the Eskimo’s.

The US Navy is said to be larger than the next thirteen largest navies combined. We currently have troops in 130 of the 180 countries on the planet. Of all the money spent on the world’s militaries, the US spends roughly 50%. My question for Orrin and Ace is the same that any of us would ask a liberal regarding taxes; How much is enough?

Ace goes on to poke fun at conspiracy theorists who are also supporting Ron Paul. Ace makes the mistake of confusing the symptoms for the disease. I think we can all agree with Thomas Jefferson that the success of a Democratic Republic depends on an informed citizenry. When the government hides behind a wall of secrecy, the public is forced to use their imaginations to find answers.

As I recall, conspiracy theories started with the Kennedy assassination’s Warren Commission. Whether by incompetence or design, there were too many unanswered questions. At about that time the Air Force closed Project Blue Book without explanation. The conspiracy theory industry has been with us ever since.

And now here comes the Department of Homeland Security. DHS was created because the 38 or so federal law enforcement agencies were not only keeping secrets from the public, but were keeping secrets from each other as well. It was designed as a clearing house for all the secrets. How is it working out? Nobody knows. They don’t tell us. It’s a secret.

If you want some insight as to what the Ron Paul deal is about, I suggest Daniel Henninger’s latest effort for the Wall Street Journal. There are really two Ron Paul’s. One is the “cranky Texas Libertarian,” and the other is an idea, the growing realization that there is too much. There is too much secrecy, too many closed door meetings, too many foreign adventures to no effect, too many leaders who are no more than slippery salesmen in disguise, too much intrusion, too many academic theories taken as Gospel, too many non-answers, too much fiddling around the edges, too much kicking cans down the road, too much bullshit.

Really fella’s, haven’t you had enough yet?

The newsletter brouhaha

It stands to reason that after running off one outsider candidate over affairs he never had, the press would now focus on another outsider over newsletters he didn’t write. Dr. Paul’s views on race relations are not the issue. I believe his opinions on it are much like anyone else’s; befuddlement about the lack of any real progress, and the realization that if there is to be any progress it will come from the self-motivations of the minorities themselves. The issue with the newsletters is Dr. Paul’s friends.

Dr. Paul has a long history of not being choosey as to who he has as allies. Being a voice in the wilderness, he tends to accept allies where he finds them. There’s a general consensus that the newsletters were written, or over-seen, by two associates from the early days, the late Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell. They were all united by an interest in Austrian Economics. Whatever else they had in common is unclear.

All I know of Mr. Rothbard is that he wrote several books, none of which I’ve read. I ran across Lew Rockwell several years ago when I was beginning an interest in economics. He had one of the few websites about Austrian Economics at the time, but seemed to be more interested in re-fighting the Civil War. He seemed to take a special glee in bashing the memory of Abraham Lincoln. It was an interesting perspective, but not what I was looking for. Besides, my great grandpa fought for the North. I soon moved on.

If there is one question I would ask Dr. Paul it would be, “What is your current relationship with Mr. Rockwell?” It would be interesting to find out, but there are bigger questions at hand. Such as:

1) When the time comes, and it will, to decide if the future earnings of Main St. should be put towards the well being of Wall St. financiers, K ST. lobbyists, and foreign central governments, which candidate is most likely to side with Main St.?

2) When the time comes, and it will, to decide if we should involve ourselves in another pointless 10 year occupation based on the questionable theories of writers and editors at prestigious magazines, which candidate is most likely to ignore those theories? Whose kids will be sent to fight, or not sent?

3) When the time comes, and it already has, that a government that confiscates everything from colostomy bags to cupcakes based on suspected terrorism and that same government believes it is perfectly fine to detain, imprison and even assassinate US citizens based on nothing more than a suspicion of terrorism, which candidate see’s a potential problem? By what logic would a citizen supposedly feel safer?

So yeah, I’m still in the Ron Paul camp, in spite of his friends.

One hour with Ron Paul

Here's something you'll never see on network TV, or even a low budget cable channel.

I know what you're thinking. "An hour? Of Ron Paul? He's got to be kidding."

No. I'm not kidding. It's all about liberty. And people should at least have a chance to hear it.

The conservatism of Rick Perry (?)

Governor Rick Perry of Texas is running for president. I've heard he is a conservative, but then according to the standards of the Eastern Media Establishment, anyone who talks about Jesus in public is automatically a conservative. I'm not buying it.

He used to be a Democrat, which is forgivable. A lot of people used to be Democrats, and in spite of my best efforts, some of them still are. What's troubling is that he was once the Texas Campaign Chairman for Al Gore in 1988. This bothers me a lot, but not because of Al Gore.

Governor Perry and I are roughly the same age. That means he's been around since Nixon/McGovern. Now if he voted for McGovern that's fine, so did I. Richard Nixon was a lot of things but "popular with America's youth" wasn't one of them. Besides, a day or so before the election, McGovern told some guy at an airport to "kiss my ass." That sealed my vote.

But think of all the things that happened between '72 and '88. There was Watergate, the fall of Saigon, the boat people, stagflation, the Panama Canal, the Ayatollah, the hostages, to name a few. And then there was the Reagan Revolution, eight years of it. William F. Buckley Jr. was popping up everywhere. If you weren't a small government conservative after living through all that, you were never going to be one.

What happened in the '90's to change his mind? Was it something Newt said? Did he get all excited over the prospect of a Bob Dole presidency? Was it the blue dress? I don't get it. Something's not right here.

And then there's all the talk about how he created jobs. Excuse me, but government doesn't create jobs; that's conservatism 101. He was governor while other people created jobs and he ought to make that distinction.

By 2008, Rick Perry was so conservative, he backed the pro gun control, pro abortion candidate Rudy Giuliani in the primary. What accounts for all the buzz about Rick Perry being a conservative? To find the answer, one needs to look to the left side of the Eastern Media Establishment.

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

End The Fed: A Review

Congressman Ron Paul's new book, "End The Fed" is an excellent book, especially if you're of a libertarian mind. If not, there are still several good arguments for the abolition of the Federal Reserve Bank that could have mass appeal. Speaking as one who was sympathetic with Dr. Paul's rEVOLution in 2008, I can see that this book could be written off as the work of a crackpot by Dr. Paul's opponents. The good doctor just can't help himself from wandering off the main subject and onto some of the more esoteric avenues of libertarian philosophy. That's unfortunate as there is a core of truth here that non-libertarians need to realize.

The book starts with a simple explanation of what fractional reserve banking is and how it works. This is worth the price of the book all by itself. The idea that debt can be used as a form of collateral is central to the inherent dishonesty and ultimate instability of the system. It causes money to become unnaturally "elastic". Far from creating wealth as its proponents claim, this elasticity only creates the illusion of wealth. It causes new money to be created, but there is no corresponding new labor, no new production, and no new assets. This is the very definition of inflation. The ability to create inflation is the root cause of political favoritism, crony capitalism, corruption, military adventurism, massive public debt and a host of lesser ills.

An honest currency is a benefit to any honest person, no matter one's political stripe. The economics of a sound currency cannot be separated from its moral justification. An honest dollar breeds honest business dealings, honest government, and an honest society. Accounting tricks and false promises breed suspicion and distrust. It's no coincidence that even socialist Senator Bernie Sanders is on board with the idea. I doubt if it was the free market argument or the strict interpretation of the Constitution that persuaded him. I can only surmise that it was the moral argument that he found convincing. The great mass in the middle could be persuaded as well.

Some may be asking, "If we abolish the Federal Reserve, what do we replace it with?" The answer is the same thing that all 50 state governments have, and every county and city government too; Nothing. Governments do fine with taxes, fees and bonds. There is no reason why the Federal Government could not do the same. Regulation of the money supply could easily be handled by the Treasury Department, which unlike the Federal Reserve, is accountable to the people.

The Federal Reserve Bank has been the bane of libertarians for decades. There are plenty of valid reasons outside of libertarian philosophy to abolish it. With the current financial mess, the Fed's record of failure is now apparent to all, and there is no simple reform or granting of new powers that will change that. This is no time to be preaching to the choir. It's the other 98% of America that needs to hear this, and now that we have their attention, it's important to remember the first rule of business: Don't scare the customer.

Fed Transparency

Texas Congressman Ron Paul's Federal Reserve Transparency Act (HR 1207) now has 234 cosponsors including Dean Heller (of course), and Shelley Berkley, along with 64 other House Democrats. From the summary:

Directs the Comptroller General to complete, before the end of 2010, an audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and of the federal reserve banks, followed by a detailed report to Congress.

The cozy relationship and cronyism between Wall St. and Washington would surly make for some interesting headlines in the future.

Meanwhile, over in the Senate, the companion bill, S.604 has only 2 cosponsors and is currently in the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Neither Nevada Senator has spoken about it. Senator Ensign has been a little preoccupied with a zipper malfunction lately, and Senator Reid presumably wants no part of it; the Senate Bill I mean.

End the Fed

Thanks to Vox Day for pointing this out. It's too good not to pass along.

The Federal Reserve’s low interest rate policy is a big mistake; it is not a panacea.

Artificially low interest rates are achieved by inflating the money supply. Low interest rates penalize the thrifty and those who save are cheated. It promotes consumption and borrowing over savings and investing. Manipulating interest rates is an immoral act. It’s economically destructive.

The policy of artificially low interest rates caused our problems and therefore cannot be the solution. The market rate of interest is crucial information for the smooth operation of the economy. A central bank setting interest rates is price fixing and is a form of central economic planning. Price fixing is a tool of socialists and destroys production. Central bankers, politicians, and bureaucrats can’t know what the proper rate should be. They lack the knowledge and are deceived by their own aggrandizement.

Manipulating the money supply and interest rates rejects all the principles of the free market. Ironically free markets and sound money generates low rates, but unlike the artificially low rates orchestrated by the Fed, the information conveyed is beneficial to investors and savers. The Congress, by conceding this authority, conveys extraordinary economic power to the elite few. This is a power that has been abused throughout history. Only the Federal Reserve can inflate the currency, creating new money and credit out of thin air, in secrecy, without oversight or supervision. Inflation facilitates deficits, needless wars and excessive welfare spending.

Debasing a currency is counterfeiting. It steals value from every dollar earned or saved. It robs the people and makes them poorer. It is the enemy of the working man. Inflation is the most vicious and regressive of all forms of taxation. It transfers wealth from the middle-class to the privileged rich. The economic chaos that results from a policy of central bank inflation inevitably leads to political instability and violence. It’s an ancient tool of all authoritarians. Inflating is never a benefit to freedom loving people. It destroys prosperity and feeds the fires of war. It is responsible for recessions and depressions. It’s deceptive, addictive and causes delusions of grandeur with regards to wealth and knowledge. Wealth cannot be achieved by creating money by fiat. It instead destroys wealth and it rewards the special interests.

Depending on monetary fraud for national prosperity or a reversal of our downward spiral is riskier than depending on the lottery.

Inflation has been used to pay for all wars and empires. And they all end badly. Inflationism and corporatism engenders protectionism and trade wars. It prompts scapegoating: blaming foreigners, illegal immigrants, ethnic minorities, and too often freedom itself for the predictable events and suffering that result. Besides, the whole process is unconstitutional. There is no legal authority to operate such a monetary system. So let’s stop it. Let’s restore a policy of prosperity, peace, and liberty.

The time has come. Let’s End the Fed.

Congressman Ron Paul's speech to Congress 2/25/09