No column this week. I’ve just been extremely busy with some projects coming to a head and couldn’t take the time to write one. All is well.
Eight years ago, I wrote a column about “the continued stink of an
extinct republic as it decomposes into dictatorial empire” titled, “You can’t fix a corpse.”
It was readily apparent, even then, that the constitutional nation,
founded upon the revolutionary tradition of the rights of Englishmen,
was already dead. So why does it feel as if something important has
changed as a result of the recent presidential election? Why is there a
sense of significant and lasting change for the worse in the political
wind due to the re-election of Barack Obama?
I am aware that many of the national polls are projecting an election
that goes down to the wire. I am cognizant of the many hands being
wrung about the possibility that the Electoral College vote will diverge
from the popular vote. And it has been impossible to escape Nate
Silver’s thrice-weekly predictions in the New York Times that Barack
Obama has at least a 538 percent chance of winning the election
Interest in the presidential election is heating up. Independents and
undecided voters are gradually coming around to their decisions.
Democrats are shrieking about the threat to Roe vs. Wade and warning
that Mitt Romney intends to put women and gays into concentration camps,
where they will be forced to wear sacred chastity belts. Republicans
are shouting that this time it really and truly is the most important
election ever and warning that Barack Obama wants to turn America into a
communist Islamic republic and launch an attack on Israel.
None of these dire warnings are true.
In my previous column on the flaws of free trade theory, I concentrated
primarily on the theoretical aspects and the errors in the historical
arguments that have been made for it. In this column, I will focus on
the practical side and show how free trade, if implemented in a genuine
manner, will necessarily result in the complete destruction of the
United States of America as we know it.
Debased Money, Debased Marriages
“When a government compulsorily overvalues one type of money and
undervalues another, the undervalued money will leave the country or
disappear from circulation into hoards, while the overvalued money will
flood into circulation.”
– Gresham’s law, Sir Thomas Gresham
When gasoline prices are rapidly approaching $5 per gallon, it is no
secret that U.S. money does not buy what it used to. Even if we use the
CPI-U, which significantly underestimates historical inflation, the
value of a dollar in 2012 is approximately one-twenty fifth of a dollar
in 1913, when the Federal Reserve was first given the responsibility of
ensuring stable prices. How a relentless increase in prices is somehow
equated with price stability remains a mystery to everyone not working
for the Federal Reserve or seated in Congress; if this performance is
considered successful, one can only wonder what would constitute
For years, the media and all right-thinking individuals have
ridiculed the Americans who don’t believe the official story that Saudi
hijackers armed with box cutters brought down three buildings in New
York, deriding them as “truthers.” Since 2008, the media and all
right-thinking individuals have ridiculed the Americans who don’t
believe the official story that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii to
married parents, deriding them as “birthers.”
What, then, shall we call the Americans who don’t believe the
official story that the Libyan assault on the American consulate in
Benghazi, which killed four Americans, including the American ambassador
to Libya, was the direct consequence of a YouTube film produced by an
immigrant scam artist? Shall we call them “filmers”?
Paul had been filibustering the Senate for days, delaying action
by requiring the maximum amount of time be spent on each vote until he
got a vote on his own bill, which failed, 10-81. Numerous Republican
senators stood up in opposition to Paul’s bill, calling it dangerous and
irresponsible, especially to Israel.
Keep in mind that this vote took place 11 days after the U.S.
ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, was murdered along with
three other U.S. diplomats in Libya. The federal government is sending
money that it doesn’t have to declared and undeclared enemies alike, to
countries that Barack Obama has openly declared are not U.S. allies,
while simultaneously refusing to re-enact the Bush tax cuts because the
country supposedly cannot afford them.
If we are to take the Obama administration seriously, Egypt is not an ally of the United States and the U.S. ambassador to Libya was assassinated due to a cheesy video that was released on the Internet several months ago. While the incompetence of the current administration has often been on display and never been in doubt, the way in which the White House first paved the road to the Benghazi incident, then completely bungled its response to the assassination, is indicative of new depths of ineptitude.
There has been a good deal of speculation, some of it bordering on the apocalyptic, concerning what Barack Obama will do if the American people are foolish enough to give him another four years to preside over them. Obama says that he would grade his performance as “Incomplete,” thereby indicating that he has plans he has not yet been able to fulfill. But what are those plans? And has he truly given us any indication of them in his recent speech to the Democratic National Convention?