Constitutional Rights Are Human Rights

The partisan bickering over the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed continues:

Several senators announced legislation Tuesday that would cut off funding for the federal trial of alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four accused accomplices, saying the five should be tried in a military court.

"We believe we're at war," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, who stood with a number of senators that included Democrats and Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, an independent.

"The law enforcement model being used by the Obama administration should be rejected," Graham said. "We're not fighting a crime, we're fighting a war."

But, I ask, when did Congress declare war, and with what nation are we at war? The last time Congress declared war was on December 11, 1941, in response to Germany's declaration of war against the United States.

Congressman Ron Paul declares, "The process by which we’ve entered wars... and the inconclusive results of each war since that time, are obviously related to Congress’ abdication of its responsibility regarding war, given to it by Article I Section 8 of the Constitution."

Sadly, it appears that an honest understanding of the Constitution is a very rare anomaly on Capitol Hill. Our representatives in Congress have continuously and deliberately circumvented the precepts of the Constitution in order to advance their rotten agendas at the expense of the people's liberty over the last century.

Senator Joe Lieberman also commented on the impending trial:

"Putting Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a public courtroom in full view of the public gives him a better platform than any member of al Qaeda has been given to recruit new members," Lieberman said.

I find Senator Lieberman's initial comment to be somewhat ironic. Indeed, no better platform for al Qaeda recruitment could be provided than was provided by the United States government when they repeatedly attacked, occupied, and manipulated various countries throughout the Middle East. As I wrote in a previous post, there is undeniable evidence that American involvement in the Middle East has helped recruitment in terror organizations immensely. Again, Ron Paul was correct when he said of the then looming U.S. invasion of Iraq, "The greatest beneficiaries of the attack may well be Osama bin Ladin and the al Qaeda. Some in the media have already suggested that the al Qaeda may be encouraging the whole event. Unintended consequences will occur – what will come from this attack is still entirely unknown."

Senator Lieberman continued:

"To try them as common criminals, giving them the constitutional rights of American citizens in our courts, is justice according to Alice in Wonderland."

Fortunately, the Constitution clearly distinguishes between persons and citizens, and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments - the right to due process and a speedy trial respectively - declare persons to have these rights. The founders understood that these were inalienable rights - essentially human rights - rights that all men should have. Thus, I refuse to accept the notion that the Bill of Rights applies only to those that are fortunate enough and extraordinary enough to be American citizens.

If Americans want to encourage liberty to take hold across the world then we should do so - not through imperialism, not by force - but by example. We should restore our country to the confines of our Constitution and bring these men to justice. In doing so, we can demonstrate to the world the compassion that is the foundation of America and the morality that resides in all of us.

Have We Passed the Point of No Return?

The projected budget deficit for the coming year approaches 11 percent of the total economic output of the United States. While budget deficits have soared during past wars, the government's commitment to the Global War on Terror - essentially a war on an ideology that cannot be destroyed - provides little optimism that an end to conflict could return the deficit to reasonable levels (i.e. no deficit).

Current deficit projections effectively leave no room for the new entitlement programs that crowd Obama's agenda. Even while the President tries to play politics with ineffective spending freezes and optimistic projections, the White House's own numbers admit that the deficit will again increase by 2019. But with a history of deficits that reach back to the founding of America, we cannot expect that Obama or his predecessors will adhere to any true policy of fiscal responsibility.

With the current climate of endless wars and ever increasing deficits, how long can the world's first superpower retain that power? The course on which America is headed can only have one ultimate result: disaster. The only solution is for Americans to stand up and elect true fiscal conservatives that will stop the endless theft of wealth from future generations.

More Debt for Students, More Cash for Universities

While the White House continues to spew rhetoric about not passing on the debt burden to future generations, the President proceeds to make decisions that are counter-intuitive to that refusal. The “change we can believe in” that we have witnessed to date has, in reality, only been a renewal of the welfare-warfare state of presidents past.

In his 2010 State of the Union address, Wednesday evening, President Obama reasserted his administration's commitment to increasing the debt burden on America's students and raising tuition costs at the nation's universities when he unveiled his debt-for-diploma plan to “make college more affordable.” The President's plan would afford students' families a $10,000 tax credit and “increase Pell Grants” while requiring students to pay only ten percent of their income on student loans, with the remainder of the debt to be forgiven after twenty years. For students that chose to enter a “public service” profession – whatever that may be – the debt will be forgiven after only ten years of payment. But who, I ask, will pay the debt? Why, we'll just pass it on to the next generation!

This policy of subsidizing student loans stands to perpetuate the rising costs of education in America, just as the students of today's college generation are already feeling the debt pile on. USA Today reports that the average debt of peoples age 22 to 29 increased 10% over the five years from 2001 to 2006 to $16,120, and student loan balances rose to an average of $14,379, while nearly half of them have stopped paying on that debt.

Following his proposition for more student debt, President Obama sent an ironic message to America's schools:

It's time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs.

If the government is going to make financial aid even more accessible to students, then why shouldn't the universities raise tuition? Consider this hypothetical: If every college student in America had sudden access to $100,000 for school, then why should we expect universities to only charge $1,000? The easy money policies of Washington will essentially make every student wealthy in regards to school tuition by making American students more likely to take on debt, affording universities the ability to make education more costly. Moreover, if every citizen of America is able to obtain a college degree, then that degree will become essentially worthless as an asset in the marketplace.

Now, consider the following – a scenario in which market forces put downward pressure on the costs of tuition: If the government were to no longer subsidize student loans then creditors would be more skeptical of lending students money, as students traditionally do not have high incomes or steady jobs. Consequently, if students were no longer able to afford college due to their inability to acquire loans, then market pressures would necessarily lower tuition costs – colleges and universities would not simply sit empty, they would have to lower their tuition in order to fill up their classes.

The politicians and policy-makers in Washington have repeatedly displayed a blatant ignorance of economic principle. Rather than allow markets to put downward pressures on college tuition, they opt to expand the welfare-state and subsidize education costs, further entrenching our students in debt. If our nation and its economy are to survive, we must abandon the savior-based economy and return to a savings based one – we must let the free market work to reign in the high costs of education. For to continue subsidizing our costly lifestyle at the expense of future generations is simply immoral.

The Reality of Reality

As the cameras moved along one of the cell blocks, a prisoner with a thick Arabic accent said sarcastically:

Al Qaida used to be only 50 people, now it is about half a million! Thank you America!

This was the scene in a recent National Geographic Channel Explorer episode entitled, “Inside Guantanamo.” The documentary provides an eye opening look at the United States government's unlawful detention camps at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. While the episode makes a valiant effort to validate America's need for the prison, it also gives the prisoners a voice – a voice that America should listen to. Why, though, do so many Americans fail to hear these warnings?

During the Republican primary debates, prior to the 2008 election, Congressman Ron Paul regularly and correctly cited the CIA's “blow-back” theory as an explanation for the escalation of the threat of terrorist activity against the United States. However, every time Dr. Paul reiterated that argument, it was met with the inevitable rhetoric, “Are you suggesting that we invited the attacks of September 11th?” Well, the short answer is, yes! The ignorance that our nation's leaders exhibit towards the adverse effects of our interventionist foreign policy undoubtedly perpetuates the hatred and contempt that Al Qaida and other terrorist groups around the world display towards the West. While Americans did not invite the attacks of September 11th – nor were the thousands of deaths justified – America's policies over several decades provided the terrorists with ample motivation to carry out their attack.

Many Americans are unaware of the history of our involvement in the politics of Middle Eastern states. Since the end of World War II, America and its allies have found themselves engaged in the affairs of several Middle Eastern countries - the CIA's coup to overthrow the democratically elected Shah of Iran, US Marines in Lebanon and Beirut, and America's current involvement in Afghanistan and Pakistan only represent a small portion of the extensive list of military and political involvements by the US and its allies in the Middle East Region. And all of this in an effort to “protect American interests” - in other words, to protect big oil and other corporate concerns. Although I, in no way, wish to validate the arguments of radical Muslims, what is essential to their position is that these are countries that are on land that is often regarded as sacred by the Muslims that inhabit the area.

For another perspective, let's look at what is happening in Iraq and consider what we Americans may think if we were in their position: What would we do if another country kicked in America's door, wiped out our military, and occupied us so that they could set up a government that better serves their interests. Would anyone expect Americans to accept this scenario? Why then should we expect these middle eastern nations to accept the United States frequently meddling in their affairs?

This prisoner at Guantanamo Bay offered a unique perspective to which Americans should pay much attention. Unfortunately, rather than heed their warnings, the leaders of our country have repeatedly ignored the words of our enemies. The current US foreign policy will only continue to intensify the threat of violence on our citizens unless we promptly reverse our course. To reverse course is not to give in to the demands of our enemies, it is to abide by our nation's commitment to freedom from tyranny and government coercion - freedom for its own people and the people of all nations. If we are to be respected around the world again, the era of American imperialism must end. We must halt our interventionist foreign policy and return to the foreign policy of Thomas Jefferson – a policy of “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none” – for these are the principles on which this great republic was founded.

Quote of the Day - Totalitarianism

Nevertheless the theory of output as a whole, which is what the following book purports to provide, is more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state, than is the theory of the production and distribution of a given output under conditions of free competition and a large measure of laissez-faire.

- John Maynard Keynes, Preface to The General Theory, September 7, 1936

Something for Nothing

As the drumbeat for stimulus policy grows louder, following closely behind the recent slew of widely criticized bailout attempts, the majority of analysts and economists still do not seem to understand the root cause of our financial crisis and recession. This was never more evident than in a remark made last week by Janet Yellen, President of the Federal Reserve bank of San Francisco:

Typically, recessions occur when monetary policy is tightened to subdue the inflationary pressures that emerge during a boom. This time, the cause was the eruption of a severe financial crisis.

For anyone with a basic understanding of cause and effect, this statement is painful to read. While the recession might have been the result of the financial crisis (this is disputable), what was the cause of the financial crisis itself? Is it not important? Did it occur magically? Without knowing its cause, how can we be sure that our solution will be equally magical in preventing further financial crisis and resolving the recession?

The solution, as proposed by Janet Yellen and other like-minded economists who have yet to fully understand the cause of our recession, is stimulus. In order to grow the economy, create jobs, and solidify the financial infrastructure, the government will borrow money and spend it. Unfortunately, this idea falls flat at the outset without first understanding how we came to where we are.

The fact is, the root of our current economic troubles and the solution being proposed by Yellen are one in the same: debt. Debt is a wealth destroyer. It enables over-consumption, malinvestment, asset bubbles, and perpetuates non-productive economic behaviors that otherwise would not have been possible. All of these side-effects of debt played a role in creating the current recession, yet as can be seen with Yellen's comment, the ultimate culprit of the recession is noticeably absent from public discussion. Perhaps it is no wonder, considering that the expansion of debt in the US is controlled by the Federal Reserve. But while this might explain Yellen's support for stimulus, it doesn't explain the broad support from so many others.

The idea that stimulus can combat a recession is rooted in the idea the economy can be forced to grow faster than it otherwise would, without excessive side effects. But the very existence of recession, an economic contraction resulting from overcapacity, overspending and malinvestment, seems to indicate that the economy needs to correct itself when such abuses occur. The idea that we can prevent such a correction from occurring via stimulus fails to acknowledge the real cost that economic abuses have. It attempts to defy age old adage that you cannot get something from nothing.

But attempting to get something for nothing sure does sell. The government loves it, Wall Street loves it, economists love it, and Americans sure love it. Ultimately, it is no wonder that we try, futile as it may be, to manipulate the economy into giving us what we want while not giving us what we don't.

Wisdom on Bailouts

Ron Paul recently spoke on the subject of bailouts:

We must remember that governments do not produce anything. Their only resources come from producers in the economy through such means as inflation and taxation. The government has an obligation to be good stewards of these resources. In bailing out failing companies, they are confiscating money from productive members of the economy and giving it to failing ones.

By sustaining companies with obsolete or unsustainable business models, the government prevents their resources from being liquidated and made available to other companies that can put them to better, more productive use. An essential element of a healthy free market, is that both success and failure must be permitted to happen when they are earned. But instead with a bailout, the rewards are reversed - the proceeds from successful entities are given to failing ones. How this is supposed to be good for our economy is beyond me.