Archive for November, 2007

The Meaning of Ron Paul’s Support

Sunday, November 18th, 2007

by Marc Guttman

Pundits are speculating about the reasons behind the vast support for Ron Paul’s campaign for the U.S. presidency. Deductions I’ve read about the campaign’s impressive $4.3 million dollar online fundraising by donations from 38,000 Americans in a 24-hour period, seem to miss the obvious point. It’s more than just widespread disapproval of our current government and the Iraq War. There have been “protest candidates” before, but few have had Paul’s success. It’s the man and his message. And many who have heard it are convinced.

First, consider that Paul’s average donation on Nov. 5 was $103, more than twice as high as his average donation, and that the “money bomb” event was organized independently from his campaign. Paul’s supporters are individuals. They are not the weapons industry, corporations, special-interest groups, or anyone else seeking favor or privilege.

Paul’s supporters want honesty, openness, fairness, equality, prosperity and peace, not to mention our inalienable individual rights back. And they want America to stop meddling in the affairs of other peoples. This a bottom-up, grass-roots movement. And, it is coming on like gangbusters, a fact that concerns those who love power and authority.

Ron Paul was a flight surgeon in the Air Force, before becoming an obstetrician-gynecologist. The people who know him best have sent him 10 times to represent them in Congress, where he has consistently upheld his oath to defend the Constitution and has unwaveringly defended individual liberty for everyone.

Paul has never taken a government-paid junket. He has not participated in the lucrative congressional pension program. It is well known that lobbyists do not bother knocking on his door. He has never voted for a congressional pay raise, an unbalanced budget or to raise our taxes. He voted against the Iraq War Resolution, the Patriot Act, the Real ID Act, the Military Commissions Act, and any funding for the Iraq War. It is often said about him that “what he says is what he believes, not what he thinks you want to hear.”

He is likely the most principled and reluctant presidential candidate since George Washington.

The message

This candidate does little self-adulation. For Paul, it’s all about the message, which he argues, unlike himself, “has no short-comings.” His is the liberty message and is likely the true
reason for his support among so many. As liberty is moral, practical, peaceful and universally beneficial, it makes sense to libertarians, like me, that his message is popular.

Paul is a champion of the U.S. Constitution. He has spent his limited amount of on-air media time explaining this, but has not had the opportunity, other than through his writings and speeches, to explain why adhering strictly to the Constitution is beneficial. So, let me.

The Constitution was not written for the new Americans ratifying it, but for the new federal government. It is a document that describes very clearly the few powers enumerated to the federal government by the people and states, and ensures that the government cannot initiate force against us or infringe upon our rights or property.

In our often well-intentioned attempt to solve more quickly the few problems suffered by any free society, we have created wider-spread, deeper-rooted and longer-standing ones by expanding government’s power and reach.

Consequences of breaking law

This disregard for the rule of law has allowed our government to lead us into overseas conflicts that go beyond matters of defense, to infringe on our civil rights, to confiscate our property, to take close to 50 percent of our incomes, to impede improvements in quality and affordability of health care and education, to make it more difficult for people to provide for their families, to allow connected businesses unfair leverage, thus driving out competition
and harming consumers, to infringe on our rights to self-ownership and choosing potential medical therapies for ourselves, to allow private banks to print unbacked money causing harmful inflation, to harm the environment, to discourage ingenuity and entrepreneurialism, the ingredients of self-satisfaction and economic development.

Most often the legislation of politicians harms us, harms the least well off of us the most and harms those it aims to help. Many believe we can make our lives on this planet more peaceful, fairer, greener and more prosperous by returning to a society based on individual rights and by establishing a truly free-market economy, free trade and a foreign policy of nonintervention.

Marc Guttman is an emergency physician and vice chairman of the Libertarian Party of Connecticut. He lives in East Lyme. This op-ed Perspective column was published in The Day (New London, Conn.), November 18, 2007. [ link ]

The Weak Dollar and Inflation

Saturday, November 10th, 2007

Here is a report from ABC News about the Congressional Joint Economic committee hearing on November 8, 2007. Presidential candidate congressman Ron Paul questioned Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke about the operations of the Fed, in regard to expanding bank reserves.

Paul vs. Bernanke on the Value of the Dollar
by Z. Byron Wolf, ABC News

I wish Ron Paul were better focused. His ranting at Bernanke about “printing money” is based on his elementary reading of classical economic theory. Those great cassical economics writers mostly emphasized the cause of inflation as increases in the money supply. But the value of money, like the value of everything else, is determined by supply and demand. In today’s monetary system, explaining inflation requires understanding also the demand side. An increase in the supply of money today is less important than whatever impacts the demand for money, particularly in foreign exchange markets - when the demand drops and good alternatives like the Yen and Euro are available.

In the classical economic model, the demand for money is a constant force, or it changes very slowly. The supply of money, e.g. a printing press, gives all the action. Everybody understands the “bountiful harvest” model: a larger supply of apples reduces the price of each apple. Likewise, more dollars; cheaper dollars.

But even if the harvest is not up, the same thing would happen to the price of apples if people decided to stop buying them due to some fad or concern they might be bad for your health. When the international, outside-the-USA demand for dollars falls, the exchange rate of the dollar also falls. Dollar-prices of U.S. imports increase, and with oil among the greatest imports, the cost-pressure hits every sector of the U.S. economy. Domestic price level inflation is mostly due to rising import costs, not domestic factors. It is not due to a surge in the supply of domestic U.S. dollars.

Ron Paul should have asked chairman Bernanke whether he thinks the Federal Reserve can ultimately affect the demand for the U.S. dollar merely by manipulating bank reserves and the Federal Funds interest rate? In other words, he should have asked about Bernanke’s central operating tool - and whether it really works in today’s open economy, with a globalized demand for dollar-denominated assets (particularly U.S. currency). The Federal Reserve periodically studies how much U.S. currency leaves the country every year: the number is something like 80 percent of newly printed U.S. currency is exported to foreign banks.

So to understand the plunging foreign exchange value of the “weak” dollar, the real question is why all those really smart foreign investment managers, in Europe and Asia, are beginning to have doubts about the United States economy and the leadership of President Bush? They’re dumping dollars, and Bernanke can’t do anything about it. Is there a possibility here they are growing cautious due to the evidence of mistakes and an over extended foreign policy?

And what could Ron Paul’s proposal for a classical gold standard do about that? Not much.

The United States Government is not Christian

Saturday, November 10th, 2007

This is an official act of the President and Congress of the United States. This treaty was signed by President John Adams and submitted to the Senate for ratification. It was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved on June 7, 1797. (Annals of Congress, 5th Congress)

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.


[ Full text of the Treaty ]

Treaty of Peace and Friendship
between
the United States and the Bey
and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbery

——————————————————————————–

Article 1. There is a firm and perpetual peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary, made by the free consent of both parties, and guarantied by the most potent Dey and Regency of Algiers.

Art. 2. If any goods belonging to any nation with which either of the parties is at war, shall be loaded on board of vessels belonging to the other party, they shall pass free, and no attempt shall be made to take or detain them.

Art. 3. If any citizens , subjects, or effects, belonging to either party, shall be found on board a prize vessel taken from an enemy by the other party, such citizens or subjects shall be set at liberty, and the effects restored to the owners.

Art. 4. Proper passports are to be given to all vessels of both parties, by which they are to be known. And considering the distance between the two countries, eighteen months from the date of this treaty, shall be allowed for procuring such passports. During this interval the other papers, belonging to such vessels, shall be sufficient for their protection.

Art. 5. A citizen or subject of either party having bought a prize vessel, condemned by the other party, or by any other nation, the certificates of condemnation and bill of sale shall be a sufficient passport for such vessel for one year; this being a reasonable time for her to procure a proper passport.

Art. 6. Vessels of either party, putting into the ports of the other, and having need of provisions or other supplies, they shall be furnished at the market price. And if any such vessel shall so put in, from a disaster at sea, and have occasion to repair, she shall be at liberty to land and re-embark her cargo without paying any duties. But in case shall she be compelled to the land her cargo.

Art. 7. Should a vessel of either party be cast on the shore of the other, all proper assistance shall be given to her and her people; no pillage shall be allowed; the property shall remain at the disposition of the owners; and the crew protectedand succored till they can be sent to their country.

Art. 8. If a vessel of either party should be attacked by an enemy, within gun-shot of the forts of the other , she shall be defended as much as possible. If she be in port she shall not be seized on or attacked, when it is in the power of the other party to protect her. And when she proceeds to sea, no enemy shall be allowed to pursue her from the same port, within twenty-four hours after her departure.

Art. 9. The commerce between the United States and Tripoli; the protection to be given to merchants, masters of vessels, and seamen; the reciprocal right of the establishing Consuls in each country; and the privileges, immunities, and jurisdiction, to be on the same footing with those of the most favored nations respectively.

Art. 10. The money and presents demanded by the Bey of Tripoli, as a full and satisfactory consideration on his part, and on the part of his subjects, for this treaty of perpetual peace and friendship, are acknowledged to have been received by him previous to his signing the same, according to a receipt which is hereto annexed, except such as part as is promised, on the part of the United States, to be delivered and paid by them on the arrival of their Consul in Tripoli; of which part a note is likewise hereto annexed. And no pretense of any periodical tribute of further payments is ever to be made by either party.

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Art. 12. In case of any dispute, arising from a violation of any of the articles of this treaty, no appeal shall be made to arms; nor shall war be declared on any pretext whatever. But if the Consul, residing at the place where the dispute shall happen, shall not be able to settle the same, an amicable referrence shall be made to the mutual friend of the parties, the Dey of Algiers; the parties hereby engaging to abide by his decision. And he, by virtue of his signature to this treaty, engages for himself and successors to declare the justice of the case, according to the true interpretation of the treaty, and to use all the means in his power to enforce the observance of the same.

Signed and sealed at Tripoli of Barbary the 3d day of Junad in the year of the Hegira 1211 - corresponding with the 4th day of November, 1796, by


JUSSOF BASHAW MAHOMET, Bey.
MAMET, Treasurer.
AMET, Minister of Marine.
SOLIMAN KAYA.
GALIL, General of the Troops.
MAHOMET, Commander of the City.
AMET, Chamberlain.
ALLY, Chief of the Divan.
MAMET, Secretary.

Signed and sealed at Algiers, the 4th day of Argill, 1211 - corresponding with the 3d day of January, 1797, by


HASSAN BASHAW, Dey,

And by the agent Plenipotentiary of the United States of America,


JOEL BARLOW.

American diplomat Joel Barlow negotiated the treaty with Algiers and Tripoli in 1796 and President Thomas Jefferson sent the U.S. Navy and Marines into battle five years later to enforce the treaty against pirates operating from Tripoli.

Britain’s Mr. Bean Comes Out Against Legislation That Could Make Gay Jokes Illegal

Friday, November 9th, 2007

By Bryan Ochalla

Britain’s Mr. Bean is waging war against proposed legislation that could make cracking jokes about gay people illegal.

According to a report at telegraph.co.uk, Rowan Atkinson recently sent a letter to British newspapers accusing the country’s leaders of wasting their time on measures that have “serious implications for freedom of speech, humour and creative expression.�

The legislation that has the Blackadder star seeing red is known as the Criminal Justice Bill, which is currently making its way through Parliament and if passed could put people in prison for up to seven years for “stirring up hatred against homosexuals.”

In his letter, Atkinson said the legislation seems to be “infinitely extendable.â€?

“Witness the fact that the government has invited two additional groups—the disabled and transsexuals—to ‘make the case’ for the proposed legislation to be extended to them,” he added.

“I am sure that they could make a very good case, as indeed could all those who can claim that they cannot help being the way they are,” Atkinson said. “Men, for example, or women. Or people with big ears.

“The devil, as always, will be in the detail, but the casual ease which some people move from finding something offensive to wishing to declare it criminal—and are then able to find factions within government to aid their ambitions—is truly depressing,” he finished.

This isn’t the first time the comedian has gotten serious about protecting freedom of speech. In 2004 he mounted a successful campaign to water down legislation aimed at criminalizing expressions of religious hatred.

November 8, 2007

Link to original: http:/ Britain’s Mr. Bean Comes Out Against Legislation That Could Make Gay Jokes Illegal
© 2007 GayWired.com; All Rights Reserved.