Liberty Maven

Just because Ron Paul predicted the current financial unraveling doesn’t mean we should just give him the keys so he can drive us right out of the recession. Or does it? Today it was finally revealed officially that the United States has been in a recession since December of 2007. After all it is important to tell the driver that the exit ramp we passed 12 exits ago was the one we should have taken. Thanks for that.

During the seemingly millions of GOP primary debates Ron Paul was ridiculed. Yet back in one of those debates in January of 2008, less than a month after the recession began, Ron Paul said the following:

“I believe we are in a recession. I believe it’s going to get a lot worse.”

Here is video of Paul saying the above words, among other pertinent things, during that debate.

Interestingly, not one of the other candidates said they believed we were in a recession at that time. I would certainly feel more comfortable with someone like Ron Paul making the decisions regarding the economy. Of course, he also said that he didn’t “know how to run the economy” as part of his standard stump speech. As lovely those words are to free marketeers like me I expect it was rather alarming to the general populace.

Read More »

Jacob Hornberger at the The Future of Freedom Foundation wrote an article called Thanksgiving, Socialism, and the Free Market in which he tells us the true story of how he Pilgrims changed from a failed socialistic system to a free-market system to overcome mass starvation:

The story of socialism at Plymouth Rock is one that few Americans are taught in their public (i.e., government) schools. On landing at Plymouth Rock, the Pilgrims established an economic system in which all their crops would be owned in common and whose harvest would be distributed to each family in accordance with its needs. The colonists felt that such a socialist system would be consistent with their deep religious convictions.

There was one big problem, however, with this spread-the-wealth economic system: starvation. When everything was owned by everyone, people would look for excuses to avoid working in the fields and the harvests were not sufficient to keep everyone fed.

Finally, after repeated food shortages Plymouth Rock Governor William Bradford declared an end to socialism at Plymouth Rock. He announced that every family would be responsible for planting and harvesting its own crops and would be free to keep the bounty.

The result? No more starvation! Instead, a bountiful harvest and more than enough food for everyone.

And that’s what the first Thanksgiving was all about — to give thanks for the plentiful bounty that had been brought into existence through the “miracle of the market.”

Hornberger goes on to lament the fact that Obama strongly supports socialistic programs, which does not bode well for our future.  Read the whole article here.

And you can read more about the system of socialism the Pilgrims put into place (the Mayflower Compact) in this article by Chuck Muth.

While Obama is being heralded as “making the economy a top priority even before taking office on Jan. 20″ by appointing former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Paul Volcker, as his economic adviser, the reality is that this actually sets off several more red flags.

Although Paul Volcker is often credited with having slowed and eventually ended inflation in the late 70’s and early 80’s during his tenure with both Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, let’s not forget that he is, above all, a Fed guy, one who believes in fiat monetary policy, in creating bubble and bust markets via interest rate manipulation.  In other words, he does not truly understand sound economic policy and is not capable of making the tough choices which will save our economy and our country.

Even more disturbing is the fact that Volcker is very much buddy-buddy with George Soros, the wealthy billionaire socialist who has actively declared war on the U.S. dollar. And as if this were not the worst of it, Soros himself might actually be a contender as one of President Barack Obama’s advisers.

Who says you don’t get what you pay for?  George Soros has certainly proven that you can buy and pay for an election in The United States of America.

Last week I wrote an article suggesting that Obama put the decision of war in Afghanistan back in the hands of Congress where it belongs. In a Washington Times op-ed Bruce Fein makes a similar argument for Obama’s Iraq exit strategy. I couldn’t agree with him more.

After Inauguration, he should declare the war illegal because it was initiated by President George W. Bush pursuant to an unconstitutional delegation of power by Congress effectuated by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq (AUMFAI). Mr. Obama should announce that all combat operations in Iraq will cease 30 days after Inauguration unless Congress enacts a statute directing him to continue the war.

He can depend on congressional inaction. Members lack both the incentive and political backbone to take responsibility for sending men and women to die on a fool’s errand to make Shi’ites, Sunnis, and Kurds democrats after 5,000 consecutive years of despotism and vicious tribal, ethnic or religious enmities.

After Congress balks at President Obama’s challenge, all U.S. combat troops in Iraq would return home in an orderly fashion beginning February 2009. President Obama could blame any ensuing Iraqi strife, ethnic cleansing or domination by Iran on Congress for failing to prolong the war.

Fein goes a bit further and suggests that such action is a win-win for Obama.

The first three comments to this piece on the Washington Times site demonstrates the complete and utter ignorance many people still have about the authority of the Constitution. The document is law. It is not just law, but the “supreme law of the land.” Just because a lawmaking body in the 21st century makes a law in direct opposition to the Constitution doesn’t mean the 18th century document is null and void.

In practice though, that is what the Constitution has become and sadly, that may be all that matters. The great question of our time may be: How can the Constitution effectively protect our natural rights when the citizens have left it up to the federation of money and power hungry bureaucrats in Washington to enforce and follow it? They aren’t interested in natural right preservation. They are solely interested in power preservation.

Maybe the answer lies in the question itself. It is up to the people to enforce Constitutional restrictions on our government, but how can this be done in this era of government and citizen co-dependence?

In time, the only remedy for such co-dependence may be a new Declaration of Independence.

As Obama continues making public his choices for his cabinet more evidence mounts that his version of change is just more of the same. One of his first announcements was Rahm Emanuel for his Chief of Staff. Many have criticized this decision as a partisan move. Other establishment choices followed, including the recent choice of Timothy Geithner for Treasury Secretary. Welcome to change Obama style. In other words, welcome to Bush 2.0.

Who said the following?

…the economic crisis facing the country is “an opportunity to do things you could not do before. You never want a serious crisis to go to waste…”

These are the scary words from incoming Obama Chief of Staff Emanuel. I thought Democrats were against such talk after the accusations George Bush received after “using” the 9/11 crisis to remove more and more of our civil liberties in the years since. I suppose we will find out what Emmanuel meant by those words in the years to come. I’m worried, aren’t you?

Apparently, those Democrats castigating Bush for politicizing the 9/11 attacks are the fairest of fair weather fans. They cry foul not based on principle but based upon which team is swinging the bat.

Bruce Fein, a laywer who specializes in constitutional and international law, gave what arguably could be considered one of the best speeches at Ron Paul’s Rally For The Republic earlier this year. He also testified at a Congressional hearing regarding the Executive Branch’s (i.e. Bush Administration’s) power-hungry ways.  In light of Obama’s (and the Congress’) endorsement of Troubled Asset Relief Act of 2008 (TARA) — in addition to all the financial bailouts to date — Fein wrote an editorial in the Washington Times, railing against such ill advised interventions which he claims “reward political machinations inside the Beltway; distort economic competition by favoring some industries or companies over others; and, kill new jobs or innovation - earmarks of a healthy economy.”

Writing 220 years ago in Federalist 62, James Madison descried incessant changes in the law that altered the economic playing field. Legal instability confers on lobbyists and their clients a preferred position over men and women whose labors are economically productive. Anticipating modern-day Jack Abramoffs, Madison observed that mutability in government financial decrees gives “unreasonable advantage … to the sagacious, the enterprising, and the moneyed few over the industrious and uninformed mass of the people. Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue, or in any way affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change, and can trace its consequences; a harvest, reared not by themselves, but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow citizens. This is a state of things in which it may be said with some truth that laws are made for the FEW, not for the MANY.”

Fein goes on to illustrate how Madison’s sage words fits today’s situation perfectly.  Read the whole article here.

D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h

Quotes of the Day:

“You can’t walk around unless you’ve got flak jackets, helmets on all the time, no matter where you are. It’s always struck me it’s almost like a Fellini movie, kind of unreal. The American people are told things are stable and secure, and violence is down. No American would walk outside there without a convoy!” — Chuck Hagel, upon returning from Baghdad

“At long last, the fragile state of Somalia seems to be slowly resurfacing from a searing bout of violence and humanitarian crisis. Interestingly, the light at the end of this decades-long tunnel is not burning at the behest of the United States or the United Nations; rather, it burns because Somali leaders, both within the government and without, have banded together. Frustrated by failed foreign interventions, they are now seeking sustainable Somali-based solutions. The key to success, going forward, is to keep it Somali-led. Further intervention from neighboring Ethiopia or the United States will be ruinous.” — Michael Shank, Communications Director, Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University, Senior Analyst at Foreign Policy In Focus

Subject: Real “Change” in Iraq

Many people think the U.S. occupation of Iraq has become a non-issue, for two reasons . . .

1. Violence is down
2. The U.S. government signed an agreement with the Iraqi government to continue the occupation

We feel differently. We think the occupation is still an issue, because . . .

* American soldiers continue to die
* The factions in Iraq haven’t reached a settlement, and have no incentive to do so as long as we remain there
* Somalia and Lebanon show that stable societies are grown from within, not engineered from without
* The “agreement” to continue the occupation was signed by a U.S. government that has now been repudiated
* The public legitimacy of the Iraqi government is also highly questionable
* The dollars being spent in Iraq belong in the pockets of struggling U.S. taxpayers

This is why we think the occupation is still an issue. We still want the occupation to end. We want change.

Barack Obama won election by promising change. He distinguished himself from Hillary Clinton and John McCain by having always opposed the Iraq invasion, and by promising to leave Iraq sooner rather than later. Iraq was a key issue to millions of Obama voters. Will they get the change they sought? Consider these points . . .

Read More »

And so it begins. The pixels barely dry on my commentary this morning about Obama’s coming intervention is Afghanistan we get a new message from Al-Qaeda’s number two man, Ayman Zawahiri, warning Obama and the U.S. of the likely outcome of such a policy.

“What you have announced before … that you will withdraw (US) troops from Iraq (and send them) to Afghanistan is a policy that is doomed to failure,” Zawahiri said in the message made available by the SITE Intelligence Group.

“If you still want to be stubborn about America’s failure in Afghanistan, then remember the fate of (US President George W.) Bush and (Pakistan’s former president) Pervez Musharraf, and the fate of the Soviets and British before them,” he added.

Do these words have merit? Will Obama’s Afghanistan become the failure leading to his undoing? Perhaps the most compelling aspect of Zawahiri’s prediction is that it will not be an unexplored theory. Obama is going to intervene, and we are going to be able to judge the results of that intervention.

Will Obama’s own style of intervention succeed where Bush’s failed? I have my doubts.

Ron Paul has been rightly critical of Barack Obama’s interventionist desires. It certainly seems the only foreign policy difference between our outgoing meddling President and our incoming one is the venue of destruction. Bush’s crusade was Iraq. It looks like Obama’s will be Afghanistan. Three or four years from now will Obama have plummeting approval ratings due to mismanagement of his coming interventionist crusade in Afghanistan?

The real answer depends on the level of the crusade. By level, I could mean blood level. The most morbid yet accurate indicator of failure in such an effort is the number of body bags on planes bound for home. Will the American people give Barack Obama more breathing room than Bush on this horrific statistic? I certainly hope not.

Read More »

Climate Czar. Technology Czar. Energy Czar. Car Czar. President-elect Barack Obama is already promoting the “czarification” of our government. Apparently, Obama wanted Al Gore to be the Climate Czar, but Gore turned it down. Also, while the Federal Reserve continues to create money out of thin air and Obama is creating czars out of thin air I have a suggestion. Why not create a Liberty Czar and put Ron Paul in the position? I’m not quite sure what his duties would be, but the name sounds cool for someone like Ron Paul. It’s not like any of Obama’s other czars will have any real authority, or will they?

What is a czar anyway? An online dictionary says the following:

1. also tsar or tzar (zär, tsär) A male monarch or emperor, especially one of the emperors who ruled Russia until the revolution of 1917.
2. A person having great power; an autocrat: “the square-jawed, ruddy complacency of Jack Farrell, the czar of the Fifteenth Street police station” (Ernest Hemingway).
3. Informal An appointed official having special powers to regulate or supervise an activity: a racetrack czar; an energy czar.

Let us all cross our fingers and hope that Obama’s definition is number 3 and not number 1 or 2. It seems to me a person aiming to distance himself from the past 8 years of George W. Bush’s “autocratic” style of leadership would eliminate this word from his vocabulary. Instead Obama seems to be embracing the concept, even promoting it as an essential part of his coming administration.

Read More »