Wednesday, July 21, 2004

Gypsies, Tramps, and Thieves

Several weeks ago Viewpoint suggested that the array of individuals supporting John Kerry should give others leaning in his direction pause. We wrote that:

Undecided voters who might be considering a vote for John Kerry in November should ask themselves what it is about the Massachusetts senator that has won him the support of pornographers like Howard Stern and Larry Flynt, Hollywood ditzes like Barbra Streisand and Michael Moore, raving wild men like Al Gore and Howard Dean, the Communist Chinese, North Korea, Vietnam (Hanoi), and the French. What do they all know that maybe the rest of us should?

Now we can add to this list of disreputable characters the names of Joe Wilson, a Kerry advisor, and arrant slanderer, Whoopi Goldberg, whose sleazy put downs of the president were so offensive and vile that her corporate sponsor, Slim-Fast, dropped her from its celebrity endorser list, and most recently Sandy Berger, former National Security Advisor under President Clinton and, until last night, current advisor to Senator Kerry, who purloined documents dealing with matters of national security by concealing them in his pants and socks.

Berger calls his behavior an honest mistake. He inadvertently left the archives, he claims, with documents stuffed in his socks and down his drawers. The Dems want to laugh all this off, but they would be howling in outrage had it been a Bush administration official who stole the papers. Not only does their reaction to this incident, or rather their lack of reaction, evince a deep hypocrisy in the Democrat party, it also suggests that we may infer that this sort of behavior falls within the bounds of the Democrat standards for honesty. Berger is like a shoplifter with merchandise stuffed in his socks, trying to convince the police that he inadvertently left the store with the items, that he certainly didn't intend to steal them, and the Democrats seem to be okay with that.

Rather than expressing dismay that so many of their friends and political allies seem grossly deficient in either taste or integrity, they respond to this last incident by fretting instead about the "timing" of the revelation about Berger's conduct, as if that somehow is more nefarious than the conduct itself. It's no wonder the Democrats insist that character doesn't matter for public servants. If it did, a sizable number of them would be rendered ineligible.

George Bush can take comfort that people like these hate and oppose him, because people have always despised those who are morally superior to themselves. He can take comfort that so many feel impelled to lie about him, to utter the most mean-spirited and vile slanders about him. People do this because they know that they can't merely tell the truth about the man since the truth is not going to alienate voters from him.

People often feel indicted by another man's strength of character, by his integrity. His virtue is a mirror that constantly reminds them of their own inferiority, and they detest not themselves for being less, but they detest him for being better. Their jealousy doesn't motivate them to rise to his level, but rather it motivates them to drag him down, to discredit him, ruin him.

Destroying a man is one way to exert power over him and the exercise of power is the only way some people know to compensate for the character they themselves lack. If a man is better than they, they wish to destroy him. They can't tolerate a man whose very existence condemns them. They will project their own pathologies onto him in an attempt to prove that he's not really as virtuous as he seems. Thus they accuse Bush of lying to the world about Iraq when, in fact, the only evidence that people have lied points back to them. This is a sickness, a depravity which seems to reside deep in the human heart, and it's the root of so many of our social and political ills.

Tuesday, July 20, 2004

Terror and Liberalism

One of the silver linings of vacationing in a Central American country during the rainy season is that there is ample time to read. Having spent the last ten days in Costa Rica where it rained fairly often I had the good fortune to have along a copy of Paul Berman's best-seller Terror and Liberalism which does an outstanding job of helping the reader understand the nature of the battle with the forces of radical Islamism in which we are currently engaged. Berman's book is interesting, easy to read, and all the more compelling because Berman himself is a man of the left who is dismayed by the reaction of most leftists, both here and in Europe, to the war against terror. He notes in his preface the irony of millions of leftists marching in the largest mass demonstrations in history two years ago in an effort to prevent the overthrow of one of the worst tyrannies of the modern age. Even more incongruous, he adds, is that deterring the U.S. from deposing Saddam Hussein was seen as "the correct stance for every true friend of the downtrodden."

Berman himself is, in his words, one of maybe fifteen or twenty people in the country who are both pro-war and left-wing, and much of his book is given to explaining how the bulk of the ideological left, which began as a champion of the poor and oppressed, came to so passionately defend the most brutal of tyrannies, not just in Iraq, but in earlier times, also in the Soviet Union and even in Nazi Germany.

Berman's argument is complex and I will scarcely be able to do it justice, but it distills to this: There is in the human heart an impulse to rebel, to rebel against God, to rebel against authority. That impulse led millions in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries into mass movements of rebellion, such as communism and fascism, which evolved into totalitarian tyrannies and ultimately into cults of death. He argues that this sociopathological pattern is universal and expresses itself in cultures other than the European. What we're seeing in the Muslim world is an Islamic version of the European model.

Berman traces the evolution of the Baathi and the radical Islamists, two separate but parallel expressions of the totalitarian impulse, to the writings of Muslim scholars like Sayyed Qutb in the 1950s. He shows how both of these versions of Muslim totalitarianism have followed the logic of Qutb's thinking to become mindless, irrational mass movements drenched in blood and terror, and implacably hostile to the liberal values of the West. Following the trajectory of the earlier European movements, contemporary Islam, or at least a major portion of it, has become obsessed with killing and death.

In a chapter titled Wishful Thinking Berman explains why liberalism has been so blind to the threat these murderous totalitarianisms have posed in both the past and the present. He suggests several reasons. One is that liberals simply cannot believe that millions of people could possibly choose such an irrational path. Perhaps, they convinced themselves in the 1930s, the media was lying about Hitler, or the Bolsheviks. Perhaps today the media is being duped by corporate interests, and the jihadis are really not the threat that they are being made out to be. Perhaps if we could talk with them, understand their grievances, aid them in overcoming their suffering instead of threatening them, they would gladly lay down their arms. Surely, these people don't really despise the values we cherish: individual freedom, equality under the law, tolerance, separation of church and state. Surely they are not so unreasonable as to wish to kill us just for the pleasure of killing us. And so on.

In other words, although Berman doesn't put it quite this way, the left is convinced of the truth of the secularist assumption that man does indeed live by bread alone and that if only material conditions were optimal people would behave rationally. Put another way, the left has for at least eighty years been in denial about the low appeal for most of the world's peoples of the liberal values of freedom, tolerance, equality, and rationality. They have been in denial about the true nature of the human heart and the power of the non-rational compulsions, convictions, and obsessions which drive men all over the globe to commit genocide. Liberals, having long ago abandoned religion, cannot bring themselves to believe that evil actually exists, except perhaps in the Republican party, and cannot understand the hold that religious beliefs and motivations have on millions of Muslims.

What is worse, in my view, is that liberals tend to see the real enemy as anyone who possesses a realistic understanding of the nature of those who wish to do us harm and who are willing to fight to prevent it. This behavior horrifies the left because they are like the fellow in school who lives in fear of the tougher kids and who resents, even hates, any of his peers whom he thinks might provoke the bullies to start throwing their weight around. Like herd animals resigned to having the wolves now and then take a few of their number from the margins of the flock, they hope that by making themselves inconspicuous the predators will leave them alone.

If that doesn't work perhaps the wolves can be appeased somehow. Maybe if we disarmed and showed them we mean them no harm their hatred for us would be mollified. The left, in its naivet�, is completely oblivious to the utter contempt this response engenders in the mind of the wolf. The wolf simply sees all of it for what it is, an acknowledgement of weakness and a confirmation of the rightness of their cause and their strategy.

Bush and Blair have refused to go along with this politics of fear, instead they have swatted the Islamist hornets' nest with a stick, and the left at home and abroad loathes them for it. "Look what you've done!" they protest, "Now the wolves will really hate us!" In a strange, neurotic twist of an old aphorism, the left declares the enemy of my enemy to be my enemy. Thus it despises anyone who actively opposes the Islamist cult of death. It despises anyone who would seek to liberate millions of people from savage oppression if by doing so we risk offending those whose sole ambition in this life is to destroy America.

The Jews, the Americans, and anyone else they think the Islamists hate, the left also hates in the hope of ingratiating themselves with those who are eager to slaughter them. The left, Berman writes, has undergone a strange transformation. "They had begun [In the 19th century] as defenders of liberal values and human rights and they evolved into defenders of bigotry, tyranny, superstition and mass murder." They started as liberal democrats and themselves became allies and de facto sympathizers with fascists.

Berman gives many examples of this phenomenon, but one in particular stands out. He describes an episode at the 2002 Socialist Scholars Conference in New York where a substantial crowd listened to an Egyptian novelist defend a female Palestinian suicide bomber who had recently committed mass murder by blowing herself up in a crowd. When the novelist was finished praising the young woman the audience burst into applause. Applause for such a horrible crime is a symptom of a deep-seated sickness of the soul, but as Berman, citing Camus, points out, the left has always had a strange fascination with, and attraction for, violence, at least as long as it is not directed at them.

Berman's book is a powerful indictment of the modern left's hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy as well as a lucid presentation of the historical evolution of radical Islam. I urge anyone who is interested in trying to gain a better grasp of either of these to read the book in its entirety. Every page is enlightening, although his gratuitous plinking at George Bush at the end of the book is an unfortunate and transparent attempt to reaffirm his leftist bona fides. Nevertheless, both conservatives and liberals will profit from reading this work. You can obtain a copy of Terror and Liberalism by contacting our good friends at Hearts and Minds Bookstore here.

Monday, July 19, 2004

The Good News Continues

Anyone who would like an update on the progress the new Iraq is making on its road to viable nationhood should check out the very comprehensive research done by Chrenkoff, an Australian blogger who has been posting updates on the good news from Iraq every two weeks for several months now. Chrenkoff's labors, he tells us, are motivated mostly by frustration with a press that seems to find only bad news to be newsworthy. His reporting is yet another example of the kind of analysis that the mainstream press should be providing but chooses not to, evidently preferring to continue its slide into irrelevancy.

NorthWest Flight 327 Update

Annie Jacobsen has an update on her report Viewpoint recommended to its readers two days ago. Apparently the national media are on to the story, but nothing has come out yet.

For those who might have missed it, Jacobsen was on a NorthWest Airlines flight that was also occupied by fourteen Syrian men whose behavior onboard raised very deep concerns and considerable fear. Jacobsen's description is riveting and if you haven't read it, you should. You can find it here.

Some commentators have dismissed Jacobsen's experience as nothing to worry about, but, as Jacobsen reports in the current update, a number of airline officials and pilots say that there is a strong likelihood that the Syrian passengers were making a terrorist practice run.

Read both columns for yourself and let us know what you think.

Liar, liar...

Yesterday Viewpoint carried a piece based on a Fox News story supporting the veracity of president Bush's claims that Iraq had been seeking uranium ore from Niger for use in nuclear weapons production and suggesting that Joe Wilson, who had been vociferously accusing Bush of lying about this, had himself been lying.

Mark Steyn has a fine piece on Wilson's prevarications in the Chicago Sun Times, and Jonah Goldberg at National Review refutes a couple of Wilson's lame attempts to defend himself in the Washington Post.

The important question is how Kerry will respond to this development. Kerry's campaign sponsers Wilson's web site and Wilson has been campaigning with Kerry, calling Bush a liar at Kerry campaign events. Doesn't Kerry owe Bush an apology?

Steyn writes that this isn't going to happen. Wilson was useful in discrediting Bush, whether his allegations were truthful or not, and now that his usefulness has expired he will be quietly allowed to fade into the oblivion of media amnesia.

Steyn puts it this way:

It would be nice to hear his media boosters howling en masse, "Say it ain't so, Joe!" But Joe Wilson's already slipping down the old media memory hole. He served his purpose - he damaged Bush, he tainted the liberation of Iraq - and yes, by the time you read this the Kerry campaign may well have pulled the plug on his Web site, and Salon magazine's luxury cruise will probably have to find another headline speaker, and he won't be doing Tim Russert again any time soon. But what matters to the media and to Senator Kerry is that he helped the cause of (to quote his book title) The Politics Of Truth, and if it takes a serial liar to do that, so be it.

Read the whole piece. It's worth it.

Sunday, July 18, 2004

Nukes

NewsMax.Com has a couple of sobering reports today. The first claims that it is a widely shared opinion in Washington that an Israeli airstrike/ special operations effort is in the works for Iran's nuclear facilities. The only question seems to be whether it will be timed to take place before or after the November election. The article offers some speculation as to how Iran might retaliate should such an attack occur.

The second piece is even more disturbing. Apparently there is some evidence that al Qaida has obtained as many as ten suitcase-type nuclear weapons each powerful enough to level half of Manhatten. There is concern that at least some of these may have been smuggled into the U.S. with the intention of detonating them in either Boston or New York during the political conventions soon to be held in those cities.

Let us pray to God that our Homeland Security Department is better than its critics have been telling us.

A Legacy of Freedom

Nikita Demosthenes has an interesting observation on the legacies of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush:

In the encyclopedias and history books on the shelves 100 years from now, Bush will be rightly seen as being the one to finally turn the tide of tyranny and intolerance in the Middle East toward democracy and freedom. With more freedom in the Middle East, the terrorist groups will slowly decline as their potential members get real jobs and real careers.

This has always been the answer to Middle East unrest - which the left almost never admits: we don't need to throw money at existing dictatorships, we need to foster democracy.

One hundred years from now the left will be seen to have missed the boat on this issue just like they missed the boat on Ronald Reagan's courageous stand resulting in the demise of Soviet communism.

When it comes to the actual number of people freed from tyranny, the records of President Ronald Reagan and President George W. Bush are unmatched in world history. President Reagan's stand against Soviet communism led to the freedom of over 700 million people behind the Iron Curtain. President George W. Bush's stand against Middle East tyranny has already resulted in the freedom of over 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Almost a billion people have tasted freedom for the first time due to these two American Administrations. When is the last time your heard an American network anchor - or a European leader - site these numbers? They're breathtaking.

We might add that the 50 million people liberated so far is a number that may well increase in the years ahead as other Middle Eastern tyrannies, Iran, for example, begin to realize that they are on the wrong side of history and begin to move toward granting their people more freedom. Or, perhaps more likely, the people begin seizing freedom for themselves.

It should also be noted that Bush is achieving this marvellous historical accomplishment at tremendous political risk to himself. There were no guarantees that the military operation in Iraq would be a success, and the outcome of that undertaking is still uncertain. Bush didn't do this because it was politically popular or expedient. He did it because he believed it was right, and if doing what was right costs him reelection then he is prepared to suffer that consequence.

This is one of the things about him that I personally find so admirable, and it certainly distinguishes him from the current challenger and any number of other focus group politicians for whom the phrase doing what's right is synonomous with doing what'll get me elected.

<i>Who </i>Lied?

According to a story at FoxNews.com it's beginning to look like George Bush told us the truth after all about Iraq's attempts to buy uranium from Niger and that Joe Wilson, winner of The Nation's truth-telling award, lied. Raise your hand if you're surprised.

Apologies are expected to start pouring in at any moment from all those who have been insisting for the past year that Bush lied to us about Iraq's attempts to obtain nuclear fuel.

Friday, July 16, 2004

Northwest Airlines Flight 327

Back from ten days in glorious Costa Rica! Many thanks to Bill () for his provocative pieces on the gold standard and economic policy in general in my absence.

I didn't look at a newspaper the entire time I was gone so I suppose I have some catching up to do on what's going on in the world. For example, this astonishing story may have been featured prominently in the news. If so, please forgive me for calling it to your attention here. In case it wasn't, however, don't miss this article. If you're a flier, or even if you're not, it'll give you a knot deep in your stomach. One wonders how the FAA can justify passenger screening procedures that elevate an incredibly stupid adherence to political correctness above the safety of those who travel by air.

Unless the Bush administration shakes itself free of the ridiculous pretense that ethnic profiling is somehow sinful and wakes up to the fact, obvious to all but the most rationally impaired bureaucrats in the upper echelons of the Department of Transportation, that the threat to the lives of our loved ones and ourselves is primarily a threat posed by swarthy Islamic Middle Eastern men, and unless it determines that people fitting this description should come under extra scrutiny from airport security, there is almost certainly another horrific episode aboard an American airliner in our future. Surely the Islamists haven't given up trying.

If this story hasn't broken yet I'd like to know why. Thanks to Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit for the tip.

Ok, just one more post...

In A Primer - Part V, I talked about the fiscal irresponsibility of governments once they have the freedom to inflate their currency and spend with abandon, placing the burden of the consequences on the next generation.

I just came across this link to Running On Empty by Mr. Pete Person that speaks to the subject. What I find refreshing is that he is someone from the Republican Establishment, Nixon Secretary of Commerce, a personal friend of the Alan Greenspan, secretary Snow and others and yet he has the integrity to articulate and explain the very dangerous road we are on, i.e. a $44 trillion debt in unfunded liabilities. His motivation for writing the book was "to protect our children". I don't know about you but that catches my attention.

He holds the Republican and Democratic parties equally responsible yet I wonder if, like Mr. Kotlikoff who wrote The Coming Generational Storm, Mr. Peterson isn't just another "voice crying in the wilderness".

And isn't it interesting that you don't hear about this crisis in the popular media.

WSC

Thursday, July 15, 2004

A Primer - Part VII

In Closing...

I have enjoyed this opportunity to post some of my thoughts regarding the importance of gold to all Americans but my time is running out and I concede I haven't exerted the effort the topic deserves. I had little notice to adequately prepare and my thoughts were hastily written for which I apologize. The articles were somewhat disjointed and lacked continuity. I'm not a writer, I'm a software engineer.

But I'd like to leave you with one more thought: The Lord admonished the Hebrews to always maintain honest weights and measures. I believe he did this because, in his wisdom, he knew that any system that was based on dishonesty of economic standards was destined to become further corrupted morally and ethically and lead to its eventual downfall.

Fiat currency is the antithesis of honesty.

Today, the Arab world is moving toward commerce and settlement in the Islamic dinar, a gold coin, in there attempt to break away from the U.S. dollar hegemony even as the U.S. demonstrates via Iraq how such efforts will be met. Europe had a chance to do likewise but they decided on just another fiat currency, the euro. Yet these developments bring us ever closer to the possibility of a universal currency.

From the link below...

"For a half-century, the Keynesians have harbored a Dream. They have long dreamed of a world without gold, a world rid of any restrictions upon their desire to spend and spend, inflate and inflate, elect and elect. They have achieved a world where governments and Central Banks are free to inflate without suffering the limits and restrictions of the gold standard. But they still chafe at the fact that, although national governments are free to inflate and print money, they yet find themselves limited by depreciation of their currency. If Italy, for example, issues a great many lira, the lira will depreciate in terms of other currencies, and Italians will find the prices of their imports and of foreign resources skyrocketing.

What the Keynesians have dreamed of, then, is a world with one fiat currency, the issues of that paper currency being generated and controlled by one World Central Bank. What you call the new currency unit doesn't really matter: Keynes called his proposed unit at the Bretton Woods Conference of 1944, the "bancor"; Harry Dexter White, the U.S. Treasury negotiator at that time, called his proposed money the "unita"; and the London Economist has dubbed its suggested new world money the "phoenix." Fiat money by any name smells as sour."

www.mises.org/econsense/ch76.asp

Then consider this quote from one of history's most notorious bankers...

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws."
Mayer Amschel Bauer (Rothschild)

It may not be a one world government we have to fear, but rather a one world currency.

The good news is that, today, gold is readily available to those interested in purchasing it. I list numerous sources for investment in gold bullion, gold mutual funds, and gold mining stocks at my Gold Page.

In closing, I would like to add this piece of information as illustrated by the last two graphs at the bottom of the page of the previous link.

It shows the value of the gold vs. the value of the dollar since the year 2000. Note that my comment there is that while it appears that the price of gold is going up, actually, it's the purchasing power of the fiat U.S. dollar that is declining...govern yourself accordingly.

I have thoroughly enjoyed this opportunity to share some of my thoughts with you, our viewpoint readers, and sincerely hope you found the topic interesting but the time has come to turn the helm over to who should be returning on or about the 16th.

Thanks for reading...

Wednesday, July 14, 2004

A Primer - Part VI

Who is John Galt?

The Chairman of the Federal Reserve is Alan Greenspan...arguably the single most powerful man on the planet as he directs the monetary policy of the United States. Historically, the official reserve currency throughout the world has been gold since most if not all countries settled their trade accounts with gold. In other words, if country "A" imported more goods from country "B" than it exported, then country "A" paid the balance to country "B" in gold.

Unfortunately, as I mentioned in a previous post, President Nixon terminated the Bretton Woods Agreement by reneging on the redeemability of dollars for gold in 1971.

Today, countries have accumulated huge numbers of dollars with which to settle their trade accounts but the dollar is reaching the end of its time line. As Voltaire said: "Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value - zero."

Visit Gold and Economic Freedom to see what Mr. Greenspan thought of gold and those who print paper money. Given Mr. Greenspan's eloquent dissertation on the subject, I can only see two possible conclusions, either Mr. Greenspan has sold out and become one of the very statists he railed against in his now famous speech at the link above or he sees himself as Ayn Rand's hero, John Galt, who's mission it was to stop the economic engine of the world and thereby forcing everyone to come to their senses.

Time may tell.

Monday, July 12, 2004

A Primer - Part V

The War Enabler...

When country "A" decides to declare war on country "B", its ability to do so is directly correlated to its ability to pay for its war machine. Troops, tanks, guns, an air force, bombs, a navy, and on and on.

When a country's currency is tied to a real asset such as gold and there isn't enough gold in the treasury, it simply can't pay the expense of waging war and alternative solutions are found.

A country on a fiat currency system has no problem printing the money to pay for the war machine so war it will be. For example, some say the US government has already spent $100 billion on the war in Iraq. Additional costs are estimated to be anywhere from another $50 to $200 billion. Where does all this money come from?

The simplified answer is probably something like: The U.S. Treasury prints paper Treasury Bonds that they "sell" to the Federal Reserve which prints the paper dollars required to pay for the T-Bonds. Now the government has the dollars to pay for efforts in Iraq and the Federal Reserve uses the T-Bonds as an asset against which they can print many more dollars (principal of fractional reserve) to be lent to banks across the country.

See this link for a graphic flow chart of the process:

Perhaps the most dramatic example of what this can lead to is from the Weimer Republic after World War I. It's instructive to realize that in the beginning, the Weimer Republic's currency was the 20 Mark gold piece, a coin about the size of one of our quarters. After World War I, the Weimer Republic was decimated and they fell into the trap of embracing a fiat alternative to honest money, the new currency became the 20 Mark paper note and as could have been predicted, the inflation began.

This was no ordinary inflation though, as the original 20 Mark paper notes eventually inflated to 4,000,000,000,000 Marks. That's 4 trillion Marks to buy what the original 20 Mark gold piece would buy only several years earlier. I have seen pictures of women loading wheelbarrows of paper Marks into the fireplace to burn for heat and cooking because they were worth less than wood. The government was printing them so quickly and in such numbers that, to conserve the ink, they only printed one side of the paper note.

I am reminded of an exchange with a women who lived through those times in the Weimer Republic after World War I in which she was asked, "how could you possibly support someone like Adolph Hitler through his rise to power?" The lady's response to the question put to her was quite simple, "when you have to catch rats to eat for food, any alternative appears more attractive."

I'm not saying this will be the fate of America, but visit this link for a candid assessment of the state of matter today. This article sheds some light on the financial mess our politicians have created:

The $44 Trillion Abyss

Scroll down to 12/13/2003 Interview on the left of the page for the Real Audio and MP3 links to listen.

Sunday, July 11, 2004

A Primer - Part IV

Dollars, Oil, and the Euro...

One of the keys to the success of the dollar is that all OPEC oil transactions must be denominated in U.S. Dollars. This creates an enormous demand for dollars as any country in the market to buy oil must sell their currency in exchange for dollars with which to buy the oil they need.

http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/iraq.html

From the link...

"But the need to dominate oil from Iraq is also deeply intertwined with the defense of the dollar. Its current strength is supported by OPEC's requirement (secured by a secret agreement between the US and Saudi Arabia) that all OPEC oil sales be denominated in dollars. This requirement is currently threatened by the desire of some OPEC countries to allow OPEC oil sales to be paid in euros."

and...

"The United States has at present little reason to fear a challenge to the dollar from Malaysia. But Malaysia is an Islamic country; and the US has every reason to fear a similar challenge from the Islamic nations in OPEC, were they to force OPEC to cease OPEC oil sales in dollars, and denominate them instead in euros."

And here's another discussion on the threat to the relationship between the Dollar and Oil.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/opec_iraq_euro.htm

Saturday, July 10, 2004

A Primer - Part III

Larry Summers and Gibson's Paradox...

For some background information on Gibson's Paradox, go to The Golden Sextent and scroll down to the Essays section. There you will see a link to Gibson's Paradox Revisited: Professor Summers Analyzes Gold Prices.
Then visit this article which brings it all together...

Taylor On US Dollar & Gold

From the link...

One very influential person in the Clinton Administration was very much aware of Gibson's Paradox, which Keynes noted was one of the best documented relationships in all of economics. Gibson's Paradox stated that if "real" interest rates decline, the price of gold will rise vis-a-vis the currency. BUT THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION KNEW FULL WELL THAT A RISING GOLD PRICE WOULD HURT THEIR ABILTY TO LEVERAGE AMERICA'S FUTURE FOR THEIR OWN POLITICAL GAINS. Hence, the Clinton Administration began to intervene in the gold market to "cap" the price of gold, just as Lawrence Summers clearly noted they must do in a paper he co-authored while a professor at Harvard in the late 1980s.

Friday, July 9, 2004

A Primer - Part II

Roosevelt 1933...

Going back to pre-1933, we find the ubiquitous $20 gold piece (consisting of 1 ounce of gold) with a value of...$20 dollars of purchasing power.

The US was in trouble due to the Great Depression and the economists of the day were at a loss to solve the problem so it was decided the government had to "finance" the recovery by printing massive amounts of dollars. (Actually, one must wonder what type of solution this actually is since it's simply a hidden tax on everyone through inflation and increased taxes never help to pull an economy out of a recession / depression.) The problem was that gold was a reliable barometer for measuring inflation and if inflation was perceived to be on the rise (which it surely would) everyone would cash in their paper dollars for gold. So in the wisdom of the government, the decision was made to outlaw gold ownership by U.S. citizens.

Check out The Gold Confiscation Of April 5, 1933

It became clear to governments that they could not afford to allow people to own and keep their gold. Murray Rothbard explains

"Government could never cement its power over a nation's currency, if the people, when in need, could repudiate the fiat paper and turn to gold for money."


After the gold confiscation, the U.S. government immediately revalued gold at $35 per ounce. So that same $20 gold coin that was just relinquished by the good, law abiding citizens would now cost $35 dollars to repurchase...if it were legal to do so.

See this link for a detailed explanation:

Whatever Happened to Sound Money?

From the link...

"As James Bovard observes, "citizens had accepted a paper currency based on the government's pledge to redeem it in gold at $20 per ounce; then, when Roosevelt decided to default on that pledge, he also felt obliged to turn all citizens holding gold into criminals." [10] Roosevelt also condemned them as selfish traitors.

One day later Roosevelt reduced the gold content of the dollar by 41%, raising the price of gold from $20.67 per ounce to $35.00 an ounce. The devaluation resulted in a $2.8 billion "bonus" for the government." An especially tidy sum in those days.

This is clearly on of the most blatant and manipulative examples of the U.S. government reneging on a promise to it's citizens.

And, by the way, today that one ounce of gold in a $20 gold piece is worth about $400. It's interesting to note that, in the early 1900s, one could by a nice dress suit with that $20 gold piece and today they still can get a nice dress suite for the value of that $20 gold piece or $400. So gold hasn't gotten more expensive, rather the purchasing power of the dollar has declined...dramatically, thanks to the Federal Reserve.

Thursday, July 8, 2004

Ann Coulter speaks out...

Interesting article by Ann Coulter on the Kerry pick for vp, John Edwards.

From the link...

Despite the overwrought claims of Edwards' dazzling legal skills, winning jury verdicts in personal injury cases has nothing to do with legal talent and everything to do with getting the right cases - unless "talent" is taken to mean "having absolutely no shame." Edwards specialized in babies with cerebral palsy whom he claimed would have been spared the affliction if only the doctors had immediately performed Caesarean sections.

As a result of such lawsuits, there are now more than four times as many Caesarean sections as there were in 1970. But curiously, there has been no change in the rate of babies born with cerebral palsy. As the New York Times reported: "Studies indicate that in most cases, the disorder is caused by fetal brain injury long before labor begins." All those Caesareans have, however, increased the mother's risk of death, hemorrhage, infection, pulmonary embolism and Mendelson's syndrome.

WSC

A Primer - Part I

Over the next week or two during 's absence, I will try to share a topic that I think every American / Patriot needs to be aware of through a series of articles. I'll break the material up into smaller posts to make it more convenient for the reader to assimilate the information at their own pace, and also to give an opportunity to research the facts I provide as time permits. I hope you find this effort to be time well spent.

One of the laws of the Human Condition is that man must be productive in order to survive. Historically, this productivity has been measured in everything from sea shells to gold and just about every commodity in between. These commodities enabled productive man to barter or exchange his wealth for other things he desired.

The problem today is that our productivity is measured in U.S. Dollars, a currency printed at will by the Federal Reserve. Originally, the currency of the U.S. was gold and silver. With the introduction of the Federal Reserve in 1913, they established a paper currency that was redeemable in gold and silver which meant that one could take their dollars to the bank and exchange them for like value in gold or silver. Whether you were a foreigner or citizen of the US, the dollar was "as good as gold". In 1933, President Roosevelt changed that and made it illegal for US citizens to own gold.

The Bretton Woods Agreement of July 22, 1944 replaced gold and established the U.S. dollar as the new reserve currency. After all, since the U.S. had literally saved the world during World War II, and was the only country left standing with a healthy economy in the aftermath, it was reasoned that the U.S. dollar (which was fully backed by gold of course) could and should serve as the reserve currency of the world.

Then in 1971, France became aware that the U.S. was printing dollars with abandon so the began to redeem their dollars for gold per the Bretton Woods Agreements that the U.S. had signed. President Nixon realized that this would be catastrophic for the U.S. as at that rate of redemption, our gold reserves would quickly be depleted so he reneged on the Bretton Woods Agreement and "closed the gold window" which meant that foreigners could no longer redeem U.S. dollars for gold. In other words, they were stuck with paper dollars they had accumulated worth nothing more than the "good faith and credit of the U.S." no longer redeemable for gold but for goods and services provided by the issuer, the United States. We, and the rest of the world were, for perhaps the first time in history, on a complete fiat currency standard experiment. As a result, it would be instructive to view a chart of the volume of dollars that have been created since then with no real backing whatsoever as it is an almost vertical graph.

It might also be interesting to note that since 1971, we transitioned from a nation with the greatest trade surplus to one with the greatest trade deficit. This is not a coincidence.

So if the Federal Reserve can print dollars with no tie to redeemability to a true asset, then the measure of one's productivity is totally arbitrary and subject to the whim and will of the Federal Reserve. Also, the freedom to print the world's reserve currency is extremely fortunate for the U.S.(France referred to it as "exorbitant privilege") as we have become the largest debtor nation in the history of the world. In the words of Dire Straits, the U.S. is getting it's "money for nothing and its kicks for free".

Think about it...

Wednesday, July 7, 2004

This just in...

Well, it looks like I might have to diverge from my previous comments about the nature of my posts since I just became aware of this timely article that I felt should be passed on.

Congressman Ron Paul is one of the few members of Congress I have respect for. He is a true American Patriot and his decision to vote for or against an issue is based on its ability to pass the litmus test of the U.S. Constitution. Needless to say, he votes against the vast majority of bills presented in the House as they, in fact, have no constitutional basis whatsoever.

Click here for an important issue you might be interested in.

And check out the honorable congressman's websites at: www.house.gov/paul/ and www.house.gov/paul/tst/.

WSC

While is away...

Clearly it would be folly for me to attempt to maintain the level of excellence RLC contributes to viewpoint so instead I will post some articles that have more of an economic / financial flavor hoping to challenge the reader to consider important issues in these areas that are typically below the radar of the popular media.

Originally, I named the viewpoint website "Patriot". I thought this was a name that spoke to the content found at viewpoint. After some discussions with RLC, it was renamed "Point of View" (after all, it is his website), but it finally evolved into viewpoint. Unfortunately, development of the website was well under way by this time and I simply haven't had time to update the address of the URL to reflect the latest name "viewpoint" so the address of the URL contains "pov" for "Point of View". It's a small matter though as most people will simply bookmark the URL and click on the bookmark to visit us.

I would also like to take this opportunity to mention that viewpoint is an extension of www.wscleary.com, an excellent example of shameless self-promotion, if I do say so myself. Seriously though, the website serves two important purposes for me. It enables me to learn the technology necessary to have an Internet presence and it enables me to use that knowledge to make personal areas of interest available on the Internet. As a result of my efforts, I can attribute several successful job interviews directly to this experience.

Among the pages at www.wscleary.com that reflect my interests over time are the PMZone, a set of web pages that would be of interest to anyone preparing for the Project Management Institute exam for certification. It provides a study section and a test simulator. Originally, I developed these pages to assist me in acquiring the PMI certification but I took on an assignment that made it impractical to pursue the certification because of time constraints.

The Gold Page reflects my interest in what is going on in our great country regarding the Federal Reserve, the US dollar and subsequent implications to the state of the Union.

I created The Guitar Page because of my interest in Classical Guitar and provide MP3 files of beautiful classical music for download.

And, lastly, I created viewpoint to give my brother, Richard, a forum that he can use to communicate his point of view regarding important issues of the day.

In the "Coming Soon" department, we plan to offer several new pages we hope will be of interest.

You may have noticed the "Other Websites" menu option at the left that takes you to a page of links to the websites of others we think you might enjoy. This is the first of three new pages.

We will also be rolling out a "Books" page that will contain links to recommended reading that are consistent with the topics presented at viewpoint.

I intend to add a link at the "Books" page recommending "Anything by E.W. Bullinger", a prolific writer of the 19th century. Two of his works I highly recommend are The Companion Bible which may very well be the most accurate version of the Bible available today, and his Commentary on Revelation which, among other things, provides a compelling case for the pre-tribulation rapture of the Church.

And finally, a "Downloads" page of links to documents in PDF format that Richard Cleary has written over the years. These can be viewed with any PDF reader such as Adobe Reader which is available for free.

Note that the viewpoint Feedback page may not be updated in RLC's absence but if you want to respond to one of my posts, feel free to email it to pobox@bellsouth.net and I will see that your comments get posted to the viewpoint Feedback page.

Stay tuned...

Tuesday, July 6, 2004

Good Choice for Veep:

That we may be of service to Senator Kerry in his ongoing search for a suitable vice-presidential candidate Viewpoint puts forward the name of...Al Gore. Gore has experience, name recognition, he was a journalist in Vietnam which gives him the cache of being familiar with war without the liabilities associated with actually having participated in it, and he would bring a little vivacity to offset Kerry's somnolence. He could also be counted on to be a raging bull as a campaigner given the chance to avenge his loss to Bush in the 2000 election. The fact that Republicans could be expected to capitalize on the fact that Gore sometimes tends to act as if he's lost his mind is a downside, but nobody's perfect. Sounds like an over-all good choice to us.

Monday, July 5, 2004

Voltaire, Call Your Office!

The 18th century French writer Voltaire is famous, inter alia, for having proclaimed what is perhaps the most well-known endorsement of free speech ever uttered: "I may not agree with what you say," he wrote, "but I will fight to the death for your right to say it." Sadly, this noble sentiment has not managed to penetrate the land of unbounded tolerance for all things morally and socially exotic but where speech is tolerated, apparently, only to the extent one says the approved things. No, we're not talking about New York or Los Angeles (although the day may not be far off when we will be). We're talking about Sweden, believe it or not:

Stockholm (ENI). A Swedish court has sentenced a pastor belonging to the Pentecostal movement in Sweden, Ake Green, to a month in prison, under a law against incitement, after he was found guilty of having offended homosexuals in a sermon. Soren Andersson, the president of the Swedish federation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights (RFSL), said on hearing the sentence that religious freedom could never be used as a reason to offend people. "Therefore," he told journalists, "I cannot regard the sentence as an act of interference with freedom of religion." During a sermon in 2003, Green described homosexuality as "abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumour in the body of society".

This is what freedom of speech looks like in Sweden. Thank God for the first amendment.

Sunday, July 4, 2004

What's He Saying?

I don't want to make too much of this and maybe I'm misinterpreting him, so you tell me, is William Rivers Pitt over at the anti-Bush site TruthOut actually hoping for an armed insurrection to depose the Bush administration? If not, what else does his poem mean? If so, is the entire left now howling at the moon or are there still a few sane souls to be found on that side of the ideological divide?

The concluding lines of Pitt's poem:
The fail-safe, should matters become grave: The next sentence after "...from the consent of the governed."
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Revolution.
The Declaration of Independence.
Which proves the existence of hope, again.

Misplaced Faith

Here's a piece on the different approaches to religion taken by President Bush and Senator Kerry. It gives a little insight into Bush, somewhat less into Kerry, except there is this interesting anecdote about the senator:

Kerry drew a more detailed contrast with Bush on his approach to science, in particular stem-cell research. Where Bush's attitude toward stem-cell research was shaped by his faith, Kerry declared his trust in facts. "We need a president who will once again embrace our tradition of looking toward the future and new discoveries with hope based on scientific facts, not fear," he said. Backed by the endorsement of 48 Nobel prize-winning scientists, Kerry said he would "listen to the advice of our scientists" before making his policy decisions (as opposed to evangelical groups). "I have full faith," he explained in an entirely nonreligious way, "that our scientists will go forward with a moral compass-with humane values and sound ethics guiding the way."

This is odd. After assuring us that, unlike Bush, he will base his decisions on scientific facts he talks about his faith in the ethical judgment of scientists, which leads one to wonder whether he is consulting the scientists for facts or for moral advice. It appears it's both, but then what's the point of his implicit criticism of Bush?

Bush's reservations about stem cell research have nothing to do with the scientific facts of the matter, of course, and everything to do with the morality of producing human embryos only to have them killed by extracting their stem cells. Why listening to scientists rather than theologians on a matter of morality is a particularly wise course of action is unclear. No doubt that if President Bush had a question about what stem cell research can do, he would consult scientists, but the important questions are about what we ought to do, and in that arena scientists qua scientists must be silent.

In what has to be one of the most vacuous comments of the campaign Senator Kerry says he has faith that scientists will follow a moral compass. Well, I suppose they will, although history gives us reason to wonder which way their needle points. Scientists have not infrequently been guided by the maxim, "If we can do it then we should do it," so one wonders what it is, exactly, that the senator bases his faith in the ethical judgment of his scientists upon.

Scientists, at least in Senator Kerry's view, deal only with facts. By their own admission, in addressing moral questions, they would be mere laymen encroaching upon the domain of theologians and ethicists. These, however, are the very people president Bush has properly drawn upon for guidance in the matter of whether the Federal government should fund stem cell research.

Kerry's beliefs, we are given to understand, lead him to consult scientists on a matter of ethics, whereas Bush's lead him to consult theologians and ethicists. And Kerry criticizes Bush?

For a much deeper look at how Bush's Christian faith shapes him as a man and as a president see Terry Eastland's piece in the March 1st, 2004 Weekly Standard titled Bush's Gospel.

Anathema

Christianity Today reports that Sojourners' David Batstone is calling for the Catholic bishops to excommunicate any Roman Catholic who supports the Iraqi war. In a letter to the Catholic bishops Batstone writes:

Sorry to speak so boldly, but you have no basis for so selectively narrowing your rich moral tradition. .. We recently have witnessed in the United States a decision and act by our political leaders to pre-emptively invade a sovereign nation-state. The social teaching of the Church explicitly prohibits and condemns such aggressive behavior. Pope John Paul II certainly understands this fact, as he made clear in an audience with President George W. Bush last month.

I have not heard one U.S. Bishop even suggest that Holy Communion might be withheld for any politician who enacted, or voted for, the immoral pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. Yet the consequent loss of human lives-both Iraqi and American-and the devastation of Iraqi society have been nothing short of tragic. Furthermore, this act of spiritual arrogance-invoking God's guidance while invading-has deepened historical animosities that surely will lead to more senseless bloodshed in the Middle East and across the globe.

Why is it that the bishops of the U.S. Catholic Church are unable to see this serious breach of morality? Over 250 of you are gathered in Colorado this week, and you only see fit to make public pronouncements about a sole moral issue.

Friends and brothers, I fear that your narrow-mindedness is turning the voice of the Church into something far worse than irrelevant. You risk stumbling into hypocrisy. I urge you to reclaim the full gospel of life, and announce it prophetically to those who would trample on the rights of the defenseless-those who have already been born as much as those yet unborn.

CT notes, however, that:

Most politicians who supported the Iraq war believed they were doing the work of justice and charity. A politician who supports abortion, however, would have a hard time saying he was protecting the unborn - the church radically differs on its teachings of abortion and war. "The killing of an unborn child is always intrinsically evil and can never be justified," the American bishops said in their most recent statement. The Roman Catholic Church has always held that war can be justified. The debate was whether invading Iraq met the qualifications of a just war, and it's worth noting that folks in the Bush camp tended to reference traditionally Catholic doctrine on this issue while folks in the Sojourners camp tended to take a more pacifist view.

CT does a good job of responding to Batstone's argument, and the entire article will be of special interest to Catholics as well as readers of Sojourners.

Dumb Philosophers Dept.

More evidence that philosophers are no smarter than anybody else:

"The Fuhrer alone is the present and future German reality and its law. Learn to know ever more deeply: from now on every single thing demands decison, and every action responsiblity."

Martin Heidegger, from an appeal by Heidegger to the students of Freiburg University

Saturday, July 3, 2004

Hillary and Taxes

Yesterday (7/2) I posted an e-mail from a friend who thought it inappropriate to make light of Senator Clinton for her recent promise to raise taxes "for the common good." My reply is in the Feedback forum under Hillary and Taxes.

Interesting Question

I listen to Sean Hannity from time to time, but although I agree with much of what he says, I don't appreciate the way he handles dissenting calls.

Even so, I heard him say something yesterday that I thought was pretty clever. He had a Kerry supporter on, and he asked the fellow if he could ever imagine voting for any of the seven soldiers accused in the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal should one of them someday run for president. The gentleman replied that he could not, implying that anyone who would do such awful things was disqualified from holding high office. Whereupon Hannity asked him why, then, he was going to vote for John Kerry who confessed to doing far worse in Vietnam than what these soldiers were accused of doing in Iraq. The man had no answer.

That's an interesting question, I think.

Bush is the Criminal

Sadaam claims that "Bush is the criminal, not me." Apparently he's had access to MoveOn.org.

Friday, July 2, 2004

E-Mail of the Day

A friend takes me to task for passing along the Scrappleface parody of Senator Clinton's comments about confiscating wealth for the common good:

Well, I will try it again. In the "If Only It Were True" piece you again offer this unhelpful parallel to critique Senator Clinton's not-so-shocking notion of having the wealthy pay taxes for the common good. By passing on this not-even-all-that-funny parody (of Ms Clinton's publisher deciding not to pay her her royalties from her book but rather giving it to the "common good") you seem to be again missing the point.

Collecting and distributing taxes is part of the God-required task of the State (and as Bill pointed out in his lengthy piece, is surely, if done properly, part of the founder's vision of what our government was constituted to do.) For a publisher to renege on a contract, say, violating a private business exchange is altogether a different matter. No social institution is set up to do that kind of thing except the state, which is precisely the sort of thing governments are called upon to do. But you make is sound that since Hillary surely wouldn't want that--har, har, har--her tax policy is therefore discredited.

Worse, you make it sound like nearly any tax policy would be unfounded. (Unless, maybe you think the poor should be taxed in order to benefit something other than the common good!) This is just so odd I cannot understand your point. Surely you don't think that Hillary was suggesting, a la St Francis or Dorothy Day, that we are to be voluntarily poor? You don't think that, do you?

No her comments were not about that, although perhaps that is a discussion worth having. And surely you aren't an anarchist who opposes the right of the state to do good stuff by taxing citizens. And you surely aren't opposed to spending said taxes on the common good, are you (what's the alternative?) To wit, your complaint seems to make no sense. Where's the beef? Or is it, not unlike the liberals you so often (and often properly) skewer for allowing their ideology to lead them to meanly mock anyone and everything "on the other side of the isle", just some uncivil carping going on.

I've come to expect that from the blogs and pundits you troll each day, but I wouldn't expect that from you. It looks to me just an excuse for cheap Hillary-bashing.

Documendacity, etc.

Michael Moore has created quite a controversy with his new film Fahrenheit 9/11. FrontPageMag.com has two reviews, one by former New York mayor Ed Koch and one by Newsweek's Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball. Both reviews take the film to task for being wilfully dishonest.

Also at FrontPage is a must read piece by Lee Kaplan documenting how he underwent training by the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) to aid Palestinians in their intifada against Israel. One thing that becomes obvious to the reader is how different, how much more humane, the Israeli soldiers and police are from any other such force in the Middle East and how the left exploits this as a weakness. Another thing that leaps off the page is how incredibly dishonest and deceitful the left is in working to prevent the Israelis from defending their women and children from suicide bombers and other terrorist attacks. Kaplan writes about some ISM tactics:

Such means include the hiding of terrorists like Shadi Sukiya, who was arrested in an ISM office in the West Bank. An arms cache was also found in an ISM office. Two suicide bombers gained entry for their murderous agendas under the auspices of the ISM. These Pakistani Muslims from Great Britain entered Israel through Jordan as clients of the Alternative Tourism Group, an operation set up by Andoni to aid ISM volunteers coming to Israel. They then met with the ISM at their offices for an entire day in Gaza before proceeding on to Tel Aviv where they bombed a popular beach bar, Mike's Place, killing three people.

The ISM are accomplices to murder, but for leftists the end of facilitating the ultimate victory of the Palestinian radicals, which entails destroying the state of Israel, justifies any means, even aiding the deliberate, willful murders of innocent women and children. Consider this:

When one of the trainees asked if we as ISM volunteers favored a two-state solution to secure peace, Brian Malovany, another senior trainer from Oakland who had just joined us explained, "The idea of a two-state solution is pretty much dead." This was an interesting dismissal of all the peace plans ever proposed by the United Nations, the United States, or the official negotiating parties of the Palestinians themselves. "There can only be one state called Palestine," explained Molvany echoing the line of Hamas and other terrorist organizations. "And the Right of Return is non-negotiable. If people ask you about a two-state solution just tell them it's a human rights issue. Whatever you do though, do not dictate to the Palestinians what they should not do."

In other words, Israel must cease to exist. Please read the whole article. It's an eye-opener. Totalitarian communism is dead, but the people who passionately defended and promoted it throughout the twentieth century haven't gone away. They've simply mutated into another virulent form adapted to fight on the turf of the twenty-first century Middle East.

If Only it Were True

Power Line directs us to a humorous parody of Senator Clinton's claim that the Democrats are going to take money from those who have it on behalf of the common good. At Scrapple Face we learn this:

(2004-07-01) -- In the same week that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, told a San Francisco audience that future President John Forbes Kerry will take money away from wealthy Americans "on behalf of the common good", the former First Lady's publisher announced it would not pay the $5.3 million deferred advance it owes for her book Living History.

"To get the publishing industry, and our company in particular, back on track, we're going to cut that short and not give it to you," a spokesman for Simon and Shuster reportedly told Mrs. Clinton. "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Mrs. Clinton's office released a statement saying she was "delighted to help cover the publisher's losses from unpopular books by other authors, bad management decisions and bureaucratic waste."

She suggested that her husband, who served with her in the White House during the 1990s, would like to do the same with his $10 million advance from Knopf.

Well, it could happen. Or not.

A Voice in the Wilderness

A high profile African-American is saying what a lot of people, black and white, have thought for a long time, but have been prevented from saying by an intimidating politically-correct culture. The unfortunate thing is that a white person could still not say the things Bill Cosby is saying without being branded a racist bigot, and most blacks can't say it without being labelled an Uncle Tom or a sellout. Maybe that's changing. Let's hope so.

Some excerpts:

"Let me tell you something, your dirty laundry gets out of school at 2:30 every day, it's cursing and calling each other n------ as they're walking up and down the street,"

"They think they're hip," the entertainer said. "They can't read; they can't write. They're laughing and giggling, and they're going nowhere."

"You've got to stop beating up your women because you can't find a job, because you didn't want to get an education and now you're (earning) minimum wage," Cosby said. "You should have thought more of yourself when you were in high school, when you had an opportunity."

Wise Guys

"The French are wiser than they seem, and the Spaniards seem wiser than they are." Francis Bacon from Of Seeming Wise

I think Bacon got the countries mixed up, although after the last election in Spain, where the voters succumbed to terrorist pressure, maybe the wisdom of both is in question.

Another View On Taxes

The piece Doing Good with Other Peoples' Money (June 29) elicited a couple of replies including the following from my brother Bill. See the Feedback section for another. Bill writes:

It appears that the discussion of taxes misses a most important point that, once recognized, may lead anyone who is interested to a different perspective on the subject. There are taxes and then there are income taxes.

According to the Constitution of the United States: "Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." But the founding fathers who crafted the Constitution had no idea that the above section would lead to an income tax. And it wasn't until the 16th amendment that income tax was instituted, almost 140 years later.

The XVI amendment states that: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." It was ratified in 1913, the same year that the Federal Reserve was established. Prior to this time, there was no Federal Income Tax. There's a connection here but that's probably best left for another post.

It's also interesting to note that under the Federal Reserve, the dollar has lost approximately 98% of it purchasing power since 1913. This is the hidden tax known more commonly as inflation, the true rape of the American people and that fact isn't open to interpretation. Consider the following from economist John Maynard Keynes:

"By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose... If, however, a government refrains from regulations and allows matters to take their course, essential commodities soon attain a level of price out of the reach of all but the rich, the worthlessness of the money becomes apparent, and the fraud upon the public can be concealed no longer."

So when talking about taxes, it really doesn't matter if you are a Republican or Democrat. Both parties are analogous to vehicles on a superhighway..the Republicans are in the right lane, knowing that they will eventually get to the destination..absolute socialism. The Democrats are in more of a hurry and are in the left passing lane determined to reach their destination as soon as possible. The income tax is the way they will accomplish their goal because it enables the politician to reach into your pocket, take your wealth, and redistribute it to those they want to be beholden to them, and Hillary (the Socialist's Socialist) has no problem telling you so.

If you were to look at a demographic map of the US showing the density of the population that voted in the 2000 election you would see that it shows a concentration of Gore voters around urban areas while the George Bush constituency was more rural. Why is that? Because many of the people living in urban areas live there precisely to take advantage of the largesse Alexander Tyler speaks of in the following quote:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses from poor fiscal responsibility, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world's great civilizations before they decline has been 200 years. These nations have progressed in this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage."

The loop-hole in the Constitution that makes this possible is the phrase "The Congress shall have power to .. provide for the general welfare of the United States" in Section 8 of the Constitution. Surely the founding fathers never expected it would be exploited as it is today.

When this country was founded, it was established as a republic, and as such, the individual was considered a sovereign entity, hence the Bill of Rights. The individual states also shared that status but over the years, the Federal Government has gradually morphed the U.S. into a democracy which is what Mr. Tyler laments in his quote above. A democracy pays no consideration to sovereignty of the individual or the state and as a democracy, the Federal Government has usurped the freedom and legitimacy of both the individual and the state. A democracy is about majority rule. A democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what they're going to have for dinner.

For more on this topic, see here.

Thursday, July 1, 2004

The 100 Most Spiritually Significant Movies

Evangelical Outpost brings word that Arts and Faith has come out with a list of the 100 most spiritually significant movies. As with any such list one wonders why some selections are on it and some aren't. I haven't seen all of what's on Arts and Faith's list, but much of the films I have seen I apparently failed to recognize as spiritually significant.

I don't know why, for example, Winter Light, Romero and Leap of Faith are not on the list, and Dogma, Fight Club, and American Beauty are. I'm not saying these movies weren't well done (Well, Dogma was pretty awful) only that I'm not sure what their spiritual significance was (Although, as I think about it, American Beauty did do a pretty good job, inadvertently, I suspect, of showing the absolute banality and sterility of the lives of the main characters, all of whom were complete secularists in whose lives religious belief played no role whatsoever, so maybe I shouldn't criticize that movie's selection to the list). Anyway, de gustibus non est disputandum (there's no disputing matters of taste).

Go to Evangelical Outpost and see how Joe Carter rated some of the films. I'd be interested to know what Viewpoint readers think should be added or deleted.

A Ticking Time Bomb

Here's an interesting item from the Washington Times. It seems that Senator Kerry has actually been charged with heresy by a Roman Catholic lawyer in the Boston Archdiocese. The lawyer, Marc Balestrieri, argues that Kerry's pro-choice stance on abortion amounts to heresy in the Catholic Church and since the bishops apparently refuse to do anything about it, he will.

"Heresy is a public, ecclesiastical crime," said Mr. Balestrieri, 33, whose complaint is posted at www.defide.com. "It affects entire communities. It is one of the greatest sins you can commit."

If the Boston archdiocese declines to act on the charge, Mr. Balastrieri is entitled to appeal to Rome. This has no doubt given Church officials a case of heartburn, and could be a ticking time bomb during the election run up. The question is who will be most likely to look bad, Sen. Kerry or the Catholic Church?

Faith In America

Ali at Iraq The Model writes movingly of his feelings about the handover. He describes a scene where he and a number of his medical colleagues are having a small celebration:

Then suddenly Mr. Bremer appeared on TV reading his last speech before he left Iraq. I approached the TV to listen carefully to the speech, as I expected it to be difficult in the midst of all that noise. To my surprise everyone stopped what they were doing and started watching as attentively as I was.

The speech was impressive and you could hear the sound of a needle if one had dropped it at that time. The most sensational moment was the end of the speech when Mr. Bremer used a famous Arab emotional poem. The poem was for a famous Arab poet who said it while leaving Baghdad. Al-Jazeera had put an interpreter who tried to translate even the Arabic poem which Mr. Bremer was telling in a fair Arabic! "Let this damned interpreter shut up. We want to hear what the man is saying" One of my colloquies [sic] shouted. The scene was very touching that the guy sitting next to me (who used to sympathize with Muqtada) said "He's going to make me cry!"

Then he finished his speech by saying in Arabic,"A'ash Al-Iraq, A'ash Al-Iraq, A'ash Al-Iraq"! (Long live Iraq, Long live Iraq, long live Iraq).

I was deeply moved by this great man's words but I couldn't prevent myself from watching the effect of his words on my friends who some of them were anti-Americans and some were skeptic, although some of them have always shared my optimism. I found that they were touched even more deeply than I was. I turned to one friend who was a committed She'at and who distrusted America all the way. He looked as if he was bewitched, and I asked him, "So, what do you think of this man? Do you still consider him an invader?" My friend smiled, still touched and said, "Absolutely not! He brought tears to my eyes. God bless him."

Another friend approached me. This one was not religious but he was one of the conspiracy theory believers. He put his hands on my shoulders and said smiling, "I must admit that I'm beginning to believe in what you've been telling us for months and I'm beginning to have faith in America. I never thought that they will hand us sovereignty in time. These people have shown that they keep their promises."

Beginning to have faith in America! Now if only some of our politicians, journalists, and celebrities could do the same.

Wednesday, June 30, 2004

What Would Ayn Rand Say?

If there are any Ayn Rand type libertarians out there who believe that the U.S. had no business launching Operation Iraqi Freedom it might be interesting to get their response to the words of the master herself on the subject. In 1963 she wrote:

Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba, or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self interest, not of respect for the nonexistent "rights" of gang rulers. It is not a free nation's duty to liberate other nations at the price of self-sacrifice, but a free nation has the right to do it, when and if it so chooses. From "Collectivized" Rights (Emphasis hers)

Her argument, I think, was that rights do not inhere in nations, rather they inhere in individuals. The nation has a "right" to exist only insofar as it embodies the collective rights of the individuals which comprise it and freely choose its leadership. The chief right of the individual is the right to one's life which entails the right to be free. Any government which denies these rights to its people has no legitimacy and no right to exist. In short, the destruction of such a government violates no right possessed by the tyrant government.

Rand, I think, would say today that the Bush administration was not duty-bound to liberate Iraq, but they had the "right" to do it. I wonder how many of her libertarian devotees would agree.

Standard Muslim Pedagogy

Little Green Footballs has a piece that shows that the beheadings we've seen of American "infidels" at the hands of terrorists is not an aberration, but is a tactic taught to Muslim schoolchildren throughout the Arab world.

What Do They Know?

Undecided voters who might be considering a vote for John Kerry in November should ask themselves what it is about the Massachusetts senator that has won him the support of pornographers like Howard Stern and Larry Flynt, Hollywood ditzes like Barbra Streisand and Michael Moore, raving wild men like Al Gore and Howard Dean, the Communist Chinese, North Korea, Vietnam (Hanoi), and the French. What do they all know that maybe the rest of us should?

Progress in the War on Terror

NewsMax.com has a report about part of the 9/11 Commission's Staff Statement #15 that has been pretty much ignored by the media. The report notes that:

"Since the September 11 attacks and the defeat of the Taliban, al Qaeda's funding has decreased significantly. The arrests or deaths of several important financial facilitators have decreased the amount of money al Qaeda has raised and increased the costs and difficulty of raising and moving that money.

"Some entirely corrupt charities are now out of business, with many of their principals killed or captured, although some charities may still be providing support to al Qaeda.

"Moreover, it appears that the al Qaeda attacks within Saudi Arabia in May and November 2003 have reduced - perhaps drastically - at Qaeda's ability to raise funds from Saudi sources. Both an increase in Saudi enforcement and a more negative perception of al Qaeda by potential donors have cut its income."

This is not to suggest that the war on terror is anywhere close to being won, but it does suggest that things are certainly moving in the right direction.

Avoiding Armageddon

My brother calls my attention to this essay by Pat Buchanan concerning the United States' unfortunate capitulation to the United Nations in the matter of whether the International Criminal Court would have legal jurisdiction over American troops. Buchanan is surely correct to be alarmed at the prospect of the same people who incessantly condemn Israel while giving the Palestinians a pass, the same people who put Libya and Iraq in positions of oversight of human rights violations, the same people who stood by impotently while Hutus butchered 800,000 Tutsis in Rwanda and did nothing to stop the slaughters in Bosnia and Kosovo, he is surely correct to be alarmed at the prospect of these same people, most of whom come from countries which are themselves failed, corrupt oligarchies, hauling Americans before a court and imposing legal penalties against them.

The thought of Americans being tried in a court of law by representatives from states like Syria, Iran, Somalia and other precincts in the semi-civilized world is ludicrous. It is just as ludicrous to think that our soldiers could expect a fair hearing from states like France, which would like nothing more than to slap us in the face, and the Peoples' Republic of China which would do whatever it could to weaken the ability of America to project power around the world.

The United States, with all its flaws, is still the glue that is keeping the world from collapsing into chaos. The attempt to gain more and more control over the application of American power will, in the long term, diminish the ability and resolve of the U.S. to maintain that power. If, as is fervently hoped by many, the United States were eventually to be reduced to the military and/or political level of, say, France, it is almost inevitable that the Mideast and subsequently the entire world would go up in flames.

If one doubts this consider what would happen in Asia if the U.S. ceased to be able to project power into this region. North and South Korea would quickly be at each other's throats, as would the Peoples' Republic of China and Taiwan. Japan and other states in the region would be unable to stay neutral and would get sucked into a hellish vortex of war that would consume the entire Pacific rim.

Meanwhile, in the Middle East, Israel's Arab neighbors would seize an opportunity they had been denied by American might for fifty years and invade Israel spawning a conflict that would almost certainly result in the detonation of nuclear weapons.

A similar scenario would doubtless play out on the Indian subcontinent between India and Pakistan, and would also almost certainly culminate in a nuclear exchange. Africa, too, would break out in renewed tribal and racial violence.

Europe would be thrown into turmoil by its Arab populations and by renewed fighting in the Balkans. These stresses would exacerbate old hatreds and open old wounds between the countries of Europe which have warred repeatedly against each other for two thousand years, and would doubtless bring at least some of them into conflict with each other again. It's hard to imagine the carnage that would result from all of this. The world teeters on a tightrope over a hellish chasm and it is only the balance pole of American force that has kept us from plunging into that abyss.

None of this is to say that submitting our troops to the jurisdiction of the ICC will cause the world to collapse immediately into a cauldron of unprecedented killing and destruction. It is to say, however, that submission to the ICC is a step in a process of weakening the hope and threat that American force will be employed to preserve peace and justice in the world. It's a step toward making the application of military might less credible since the United States will inevitably grow more reluctant to exert its power for fear that her sons and daughters will be held legally accountable by those who despise us for our values, success, and power. To the extent that we find ourselves unable or unwilling to act when circumstances warrant, to that extent we hasten a world-wide Armageddon.

Keeping America militarily strong is a necessary condition for maintaining peace and justice in a world filled with people who would like nothing more than to precipitate a global orgy of death and destruction. Military power, however, is not a sufficient condition. We must also have the will to use that power, and, most importantly, we must have moral goodness to match our military might. We need to be willing to use our power, unencumbered by constraints imposed upon us by those whose motives are less than exemplary, but only when the cause is right and just.

There are many at the U.N., and in the ranks of the American left, who think that the best hope for world peace is to make America weak. They are tragically mistaken, in my view. The way to keep the world from destroying itself, the way to keep the world from realizing the death wish it seems to be consumed by, is to keep America strong and to ensure that she is good. If we fail in either of those the future of the world is a nightmare.

Tuesday, June 29, 2004

Doing Good With Other Peoples' Money

Senator Hillary Clinton in a speech yesterday in San Francisco:

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Give her credit for honesty. Most liberals are not this forthright about their plans for your pocketbook. My question is, though, why don't the people who always want to take money away from the rest of us just give away their own wealth instead? Hillary is very well off since her husband struck it rich with his new book and can certainly afford to donate a fat sum to the U.S. treasury.

Her party's standard-bearer, John Kerry, who has probably never worked a day in his life and is certainly not working at his current job in the U.S. Senate, is rolling in his wife's former husband's millions. They don't need all that. Why don't they just give their fortunes to the government if they want Washington to have more and let everybody else keep what they've had to work to get?

Of course, that'll never happen. It's a lot better to just rape the taxpayer.

Why the Media Underreports Religion

There is a piece in the Columbia Journalism Review by Gal Beckerman about why religion, a matter of such importance to so many in this country, and a matter which impacts so heavily upon our society, gets such paltry coverage from journalists. She writes:

However central belief and faith might be to the American populace, our news media seldom puncture the surface in their reporting on religion. The various institutions are scrutinized, sometimes with great rigor, as a former cardinal in Boston might confirm. But it generally takes scandal or spectacle to get even the large denominations on the front page. And even then, the deeper belief systems of these religions are left unexamined. The theology and faith of the believers is kept at arm's length, and the writing is clinical. The journalist glances at religious community as if staring through the glass of an ant farm, remarking on what the strange creatures are doing, but missing the motivations behind the action.

The bulk of her essay describes what most religion coverage is like and explores the reasons why the media doesn't do a better job covering it. She dismisses the possibility, rather obvious to some of us, that journalists are simply hostile to the religious world view:

[A]lmost 80 percent of journalists [have] some religious affiliation. This also confirms what journalists report anecdotally: that there is a wide range of religious belief inside newsrooms, that many reporters and their families are deeply involved with their religious communities....[So that] while a lack of empathy and literacy might very well contribute to the problem, this can't be the whole story. Not only, as the recent polls show, is it not true that reporters are too secular to get faith, but it shouldn't really matter. No religion writer would say that one has to be a believer to understand believers. And although the knowledge problem is real, more and more religion writers are specialists and could potentially be a source in the newsroom for reporters who aren't. The "secular newsroom" seems to be a myth, and the knowledge gap certainly surmountable. Something else seems to be at work here, something more systemic.

But a few paragraphs before this Beckerman had acknowledged that:

[R]eligion writers remain a tiny minority in the newsroom (there are about 200 of them working at secular newspapers). More of these journalists are coming to the job with theological training from seminaries and divinity schools, and many of them are fighting every day to get stories about faith on the front page. But with rare exceptions, such as The Dallas Morning-News, which has a weekly six-page religion section and a team of four reporters covering different aspects of belief, most papers have only one, maybe two, religion writers who can barely keep up with the hard news of religious institutions, let alone explore deeper questions of faith. Editors and owners simply do not make religion a priority, and journalists are not encouraged to make it a part of their stories.

It would seem, then, from this that a big part of the problem really is that the people who make the decisions, the people with the power, are indifferent to matters of faith however important it might be to the lowly reporters. Beckerman, however, suggests that the problem is more one of religion and journalism inhabiting to different epistemic worlds. She frames it this way:

On the one hand, there is journalism, premised on the notion of objective reality. To report is to write about what can be seen, heard, touched, smelled. Journalism is grounded in this world and embodies a belief that everything can be known. On the other hand is religion, which is fundamentally about mystery and the unknown. Faith is grounded in this notion, that we surrender ourselves to greater powers beyond our reach. How can journalism, then, welded as it is to the known world, contend with faith and belief?

But this just seems to be another way of saying that journalists, or their editors, working from a naturalistic worldview, are antipathetic toward, or simply not tuned into, religion and regard it as they might regard the horoscope page. Religion stories are a sop that they offer to the intellectually unwashed to entice them into buying a paper, but they have no intention of expending much of their resources on it.

What's the solution? Men and women tend to live out in their work what they believe to be ultimately important. Their beliefs infuse and suffuse their work and their lives. Thus religious believers, especially young people of faith, need to continue "the long march through the institutions" that has already been under way for some time. People to whom the gospel is personally crucial need to enter journalism, just as they need to enter the education profession, the profession of law, the film industry, the music industry, and everywhere their deepest beliefs can exert influence on their work and ultimately on our culture. When eventually editors and reporters are people for whom the core doctrines of religious belief are of paramount importance in their lives then matters of faith will be receive the attention they warrant.

Beckerman closes with these wise words:

By excluding faith, we miss the core of so many stories - What motivates people to act? What are the beliefs that give meaning to our lives? What ideas are we willing to live and die for? If journalism means to relay the day-to-day saga of our society, it can't continue to ignore these questions.

The CJR article is a little long, but anyone interested in media coverage of religion should read it. Thanks to Byron at Hearts and Minds for the tip.

Monday, June 28, 2004

The Handover in Iraq

For one Iraqi's thoughts on the turnover of political control see Mohammed at Iraq The Model. He concludes with a heart evidently overflowing with sincere gratitude:

A big greeting to the courageous and noble man; Mr. Bremer whom we saluted this morning. He proved that he's the right man for the tough times. He struggled together with his Iraqi brothers to overcome the hardships in a critical era for this country and the whole world. I'm going to miss his presence and so are many other Iraqis because we feel that who left today is one of Iraq's sons.

A big greeting to the men who decided to bear the responsibility of Iraq's safety and Iraq's future. They needed courage and faith to decide to work for Iraq in this hard time. May God help them guide this country with wisdom until the day when elections come.

It's hard to appreciate the efforts of all those who helped us to get our freedom and rebuild our country. We will never forget them. We will keep them in our hearts. God bless Iraq and her people. God bless America and her people.

God bless all the coalition forces who supported operation Iraqi freedom. May God bless the souls of all those who sacrificed their lives to free Iraq.

I don't know how many Iraqis Mohammed speaks for, but it's for certain he doesn't speak for the embittered souls at Truthout.org who are convinced the U.S. is "tucking tail and running" to escape a disaster of our own making. The good folks at Truthout are just distraught that all their predictions of inevitable catastrophe in Iraq have yet to come to pass, but just wait. They will. William Rivers Pitt of Truthout writes:

The American people are not comfortable dealing with words like "total failure" and "ruined credibility," but these are words that all of us are going to have to become accustomed to.

A process that began in September 2002 as a coordinated propaganda blitz to convince Americans they were on the verge of being gassed by an Osama-Saddam Axis of Doom, a process that was swathed in flags and a snarling, nationalistic patriotism, a process that has in the last 22 months delivered 855 dead American soldiers, thousands of gravely wounded American soldiers and over ten thousand dead Iraqi civilians to our collective doorstep, has now concluded with a farcical handover of 'sovereignty' in the dead of night.

"Total failure" and "ruined credibility" are the watchwords for the day. A process that never should have begun in the first place, a process which had nothing to do with defending the United States, has led us to a place where every 'goal' put forth by the Bush administration, no matter how stupid or simple, has turned to ash. This is the great gift Mr. Bush has delivered to us: A midnight deal, a washing of hands, and a quick exit out the back door. Honor and integrity indeed.

Pitt is right to mourn the deaths and woundings of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians, but the rest of this piece sounds more like the ravings of a fanatic who realizes he's about to be discredited before the whole world. I think Mohammed in Iraq probably has a better grasp of things there than does Mr. Pitt

Iraq and Yellow Cake

Remember the furor over President Bush's claim that Iraq was seeking Uranium ore from Niger? Remember the gleeful scoffing when one of the pieces of evidence turned out to be a forgery, putting large dollops of egg on administration faces? Well, it turns out that three European intelligence services had independent evidence of the truth of the administration's assertions. The Financial Times has the story. Thanks for the tip to Power Line which closes their piece with this:

The Bush administration has known this all along. So why did it withdraw the Niger claim, rather than defending it? Who knows. It's too late now, in any event. If the administration thinks it can pull this chestnut out of the fire at this late date, it is mistaken. What Bush said was true, but the facts ceased being important long ago.

Probably true. The public has only a limited ability to absorb new information once it has decided that something has been proven. The masses, unfortunately, base their opinions on impressions rather than upon reason or facts. The impression that Bush was bamboozled by a forgery about Iraqi attempts to buy Niger yellow cake has been fixed like a stain in the public consciousness and will probably be almost impossible to eradicate, no matter how much evidence accumulates.

The Irony of Abortion

Opinion Journal has a piece that argues that abortion in America cost the Democrat party about six million voters in 2000, that the cost will be even greater in 2004 and increase every election afterward. It's an interesting analysis and, if valid, extremely ironic.