Saturday, June 12, 2010

The War is Making You Poor


The War is Making You Poor
Alan Grayson: A progressive who gets it
by Justin Raimondo, June 11, 2010

Complain, complain, complain – that, it seems, is what anti-interventionists often seem content – or, rather, condemned – to do. The world is in a bad state, and getting rapidly worse, this guy is evil, that one is a tool – all right already, my critics answer, but what are we gonna do about it? We know what you're against, but what, pray tell, are you for? 

I hear this a lot, and it makes my eyes roll back in my head. After all, why, 'fer cryin' out loud, do I have to be for anything, aside from being left alone? On the other hand, these critics do have a point: an entirely negative program, while it can be emotionally satisfying – as well as entirely justified ­ has the great disadvantage of being inherently demoralizing. If there's no solution to the problem, then it seems futile to rail against it: a positive agenda can be energizing. That's why I'm so enthusiastic about a bill Rep. Alan Grayson – yes, that Alan Grayson – has offered in the House, H.R. 5353, known as the "War is Making You Poor Act," which would 
  • Limit funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
  • Eliminate the federal income tax on the first $35,000 of every American's income ($70,000 for married couples), and
  • Cut the Federal deficit by $159 billion.

During the Bush years, war funding was "off budget" – a bit of fiscal trickery that masks the real costs of these conflicts – and the Obama crowd promised to put an end to that practice. However, so far the Obama-ites are going the Bush route of submitting "emergency" supplementals to our misnamed "defense" budget in order to cover the costs of the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. This time around the "emergency" funding comes to $159 billion: H.R. 5353 would eliminate that entirely and make our solons fund their war out of the remaining $549 billion earmarked for the Department of Defense. 

Simple, clean, and clearly illustrating how our elected representatives fool us ­ and themselves ­ into believing the costs of their wars are less than they really are, the four-page bill already has bipartisan support.  As Grayson points out on his web site, "the original cosponsors, who joined to support the bill even before it was filed, are Reps. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Walter B. Jones (R-NC), as well as two committee chairs (Veterans' Affairs Committee Chair Bob Filner and Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers), plus peace proponents Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), and Barbara Lee (D-CA)." Grayson is no Don Quixote on a one man crusade: there is plenty of disaffection with the war in Congress, especially among Democrats and increasingly from Republicans, and his bill could easily galvanize it – given support from the voting public.

Let's be clear: the $549 billion figure is, by itself, more than all the other nations of the world combined spend on defense. The $159 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan is over and above that exorbitant sum. We spend five times more than China, ten times more than Russia, and the first runners-up in this spending extravaganza are our NATO allies, who aren't likely to be attacking us any time soon. 

So what's the purpose of all this spending? What is it buying us?

Well, it's buying a lot of value for the shareholders of the companies that make up what Dwight Eisenhower called the " military industrial complex." It's garnering lots of hefty campaign contributions for their congressional amen corner – remember that Eisenhower's original phraseology was the "military-industrial- congressional complex." It is also buying us an overseas empire that is more trouble than it's worth, but you don't have to buy into the complete anti-interventionist shtick in order to support this bill: all it asks is that that US government stay within its budget and make the kinds of cuts and bows to fiscal austerity that we all have to make in these hard times. 

The energy and resources it takes to produce weapons of war constitute a net drain on the civilian economy: our attention and capital are diverted away from productive work and into a project that can only end in the destruction or quick obsolescence of the end product. Missiles are launched, and self-destruct. Helicopter gunships crash, and burn. Rifles jam, and are discarded. Warships, fighter planes, flak jackets, counterinsurgency strategies – all become obsolete with dizzying rapidity, in part because that's the nature of human warfare, and also because it's planned that way. 

In short, war, quite aside from its dubious moral justification, is a losing proposition economically – and a policy of perpetual war, such as we are now committed to, is economic suicide. A nation cannot drain the lifeblood from its veins indefinitely. As the world economy teeters on the brink, and our once matchless productive forces are having a collective fainting fit, what we need is a major transfusion. H.R. 5353 will revive the economy, and send the Obama regime a very strong message: enough is enough!

I know I've been pretty hard on my progressive and liberal readers lately, in part because, after all, it's your guy who's in power, and your guys (and gals) who have a congressional majority. So I'm glad to proffer a change of pace and say: Alan Grayson is one progressive who definitely "gets it." 

He's not only good on foreign policy, for the most part, he also understands the key role played by the Federal Reserve in redistributing the wealth from the people to the elites, and its crucial part in maintaining the empire. That's why he was one of the first co-sponsors of Rep. Ron Paul's historic bill to audit the Fed, and raise the curtain on this mysterious instrument of organized thievery: he's no libertarian, to be sure, but at least he understands how power works in this country, and how the powerful use the instrument of government to keep their privileges, pelf, and perks. 

As the Obama cult drains the energy from the Left, and renders it impotent, it's good to see there are still signs of life in that seemingly infertile terrain. This is something to be cultivated. As the tendrils of dissent rise up and blossom into active opposition to the status quo, perhaps we'll see a new "Prague Spring" which will free us from the rigid left-right, progressive-libertarian, red state/blue state paradigm that freezes thought, divides the antiwar community, and gives the War Party free rein to rampage over half the earth. 

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/06/10/the-war-is-making-you-poor/

Our Greatest Presidents?


Our Greatest Presidents?
Friday, June 11, 2010
by Ralph Raico

[First published as "Our Greatest Presidents?" in the Libertarian Review, 1977. An MP3 audio file of this article, read by Steven Ng, is available for download.]

It was as if, for 25 years, time had stopped. As if the author serenely expected that we would suddenly unlearn everything the past decade had taught us about the uses of power at the highest levels of government. As if we had not, by 1977, reached the point where even a perennial sycophant of state power like Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., has ended by bemoaning "the Imperial Presidency."

There it was again ­ as dated as a double-breasted suit ­ an article on "Our Greatest Presidents," and written by none other than Henry Steele Commager himself!

A quick background briefing for those too young to remember. In the 1940s and early '50s, a school of establishment historians existed who made it their business to act as a sort of intellectual Secret Service for the American presidency. Close upon every great public rape of the Constitution by a president ­ for instance, when Harry Truman seized the steel mills, or when he began to wage war on North Korea and China without a declaration of war by Congress ­ these historians would rush into print with learned accounts of the 129 times the Constitution had been similarly raped in the past, under dire necessity and with no ill effects to the body politic ­ quite the contrary, actually: she never felt better in her life.

The most outstanding among this school were Allan Nevins of Columbia University, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., of Harvard, Eric Goldman of Princeton, and ­ topping them all ­ Henry Steele Commager of Amherst College. When they were in a classy, quasi-philosophy-of-history frame of mind, these men would sometimes rationalize the power moves of the chief executive through an eye-catching gimmick. The public would be presented with the answer to a question nobody had asked, now just who were the really Great Presidents?

This was a favorite game of around 1950 for Nevins, Commager, and the rest, and the lists were always the same. Washington, Lincoln, and another one or two of the earlier presidents would be thrown in to give a tone of objectivity and sageness. The point of the whole enterprise, however, would come with the Great (or Near-Great) Presidents of the 20th century.

Then it would be given out, as the conclusion of historical science, that ­ taking the good with the bad, of course ­ the one indisputable Great in our own time was Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the indisputable Near-Greats were Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Harry Truman. Surprise! Surprise!

Those were halcyon days for the mystique of the presidency, such that one could find this childishly transparent attempt to turn a bit of liberal politicking into the Verdict of History in the pages of Life, Look, and the New York Times Magazine. But now the great interventionist picture books are gone, and there are smart New Left revisionist sharks roaming about on Sunday morning who would like nothing better than to pounce on such grade-school stuff ­ to remind everyone, for instance, of what Jackson did to the Cherokees, of what Truman did to the civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and that Theodore Roosevelt was a racist in practically the Nazi sense.

Thus, poor Professor Commager is reduced to publishing in Parade, the mass-Sunday-newspaper-supplement semithrowaway. It was there, on May 8, after the third cup of coffee, that one found his nostalgia-awakening article, "Our Greatest Presidents."

In case you were wondering, the outstandingly Great Presidents according to Commager (and to a poll of historians at one hundred colleges and universities that he reports on) are Lincoln, Washington, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. They are closely followed by Theodore Roosevelt, Jefferson, Wilson, Jackson, and ­ a little behind ­ Harry Truman.

Surprise! Surprise! What are the criteria of greatness in a president?

First, all were what we must call "strong" Presidents. All believed the President should be both a symbol and a leader …. Second, all ranged themselves on the side of the people, of an enlarged scope for government.

(Nobody here but us objective historians!)

The third criterion, being a good administrator and politician, is not, it turns out, a necessary condition according to Commager (the contradiction is his). But the fourth may be found in all of these leaders. It is, "quite simply, wisdom, sagacity, intelligence." (This of Franklin Roosevelt ­ of Wilson!) Finally,

There is one essential common denominator that transcends all others: all the great Presidents were men of principle, prepared to sacrifice popularity to what they thought was right.

And so it goes. It is clear that Commager's favorite is FDR. Here are some of History's conclusions about FDR: Among his qualities were

honesty, resolution, fortitude, compassion, a sense of justice …. How right Franklin Roosevelt was when he said: "The Presidency is preeminently a place of moral leadership."

Roosevelt was "prepared to put principle above politics ­ and above popularity." The way Commager phrases the outstanding example of Roosevelt's loyalty to "principle" is interesting: he "risked the loss of the 1940 election by stretching the Constitution to its permissible limits in order to aid beleaguered Britain" against Germany (emphasis added). "History," Commager adds, "has vindicated him well."

This is the famous historian's little way of getting around a fact that, since the golden age of presidential glorification, has become common knowledge: namely, that Roosevelt committed the United States to war against Germany ­ through his promises to foreign leaders and his directives to the American armed forces ­ in 1940 (at the latest), without even the knowledge of Congress, and in direct contravention of his assurances to the American people, whom he treated as fools. By now, this much is established: as C. Boothe Luce put it for all time, "he lied us into war."

For sure ­ honesty, as Commager assures us, was one of FDR's great virtues. And Eleanor's mind was a model of Cartesian clarity. But what is the use? Commager's out-of-date nonsense, masquerading as historical wisdom, is what they are going to teach little children in the government's schools. After Vietnam and Nixon, the professional custodians of the tarnished symbols of the American state are panicky. They do what they can to patch things over ­ old pimps to an old whore dressed up as history. But how much longer?


Ralph Raico is a senior fellow of the Mises Institute. He is professor of European history at Buffalo State College and a specialist on the history of liberty, the liberal tradition in Europe, and the relationship between war and the rise of the state. You can study the history of civilization under his guidance here: MP3-CD and Audio Tape. Send him mail. See Ralph Raico's article archives.

This article was first published as "Our Greatest Presidents?" in the Libertarian Review, 1977. An MP3 audio file of this article, read by Steven Ng, is available for download.

http://mises.org/daily/4447

How Often Do You See an Unfrozen Caveman Hippie Call a RINO a Nazi?


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Cap-And-Traitors


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

ACORN "it's alive...It's Alive!...IT'S ALIVE!!"









ACORN "it's alive...It's Alive!...IT'S ALIVE!!"

Posted: 03 Apr 2010 08:04 PM PDT


Barney Frank will be sleep tonight, Jerry Brown will be able to smile in the morning, and Jerrold Nadler will be able to go back to his favorite all-you-can-eat-buffet. 

For progressives all will be right with the world because somewhere in a dark, dank dungeon, a lightning bolt has struck the inanimate object and brought Barack Obama's favorite community organizers back to life. And if you listen closely you can hear the evil genius scream, "ACORN it's alive...It's Alive! .... IT'S  ALIVE!!"

After announcing that the group will be dead as of April 1, ACORN is set to announce that it very much alive.

 Acorn plans to release a letter next week clarifying its path forward and stating that its local chapters may be closed, but the national organization is alive and well. 

"You will continue to hear from Acorn — in the mail, on the Web, and in the media," says the letter, a draft of which was provided to The New York Times. "And we need your continued support to counter the vicious antifamily, antiminority, anti-immigrant attacks of the Republican right."

Anti-family? Hey, they are trying to steal the conservative lines!

The letter, which says the organization will continue working for health care reform, immigration reform and affordable housing, comes after Acorn announced last month its plans to close all of its local chapters and field operations by April 1. 


Acorn has faced a drastic drop in federal money and foundation support after a video sting was publicized last fall. In at least one of the undercover videos, Acorn employees were shown advising a young conservative activist, who posed as a prostitute, how to conceal her criminal activities in the course of trying to buy a house. 


The letter, which will be sent to the 120,000 or so members on Acorn's e-mail list and to tens of thousands of dues-paying members, says that in many of the states where Acorn's local chapters closed, 16 new, independent but allied organizations have been formed to continue grass-roots organizing.

Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA) would disagree. He released a report examining the supposedly new organizations that came out of ACORN's demise. The report takes a look at the corporate paperwork  the new organizations:

"Based on review of these corporate filings, Committee investigators have discovered that Affordable Housing Centers of America, Inc. maintains the same Tax Identification Number as ACORN Housing, Inc., its predecessor," the Issa-released Report found. "This means that, for tax purposes, Affordable Housing Centers of American and ACORN Housing are the same. Additionally, Committee investigators found that several new ACORN affiliates maintain the same boards, staff and Employer Identification Numbers as former ACORN offices. This reflects the lack of true change or reform between these new organizations and their predecessors."

 Doesn't sound very independent to me.

The letter also comes on the heels of a report this week by Representative Darrell Issa of California, the top Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, alleging that the newly constituted organizations have actually not severed ties to the old Acorn chapters. 

"Acorn is attempting to rebrand itself without instituting real reforms or removing senior leadership figures that need to be held accountable for wrongdoing," Representative Issa said. "These newly renamed organizations are like career criminals who adopt aliases without changing their criminal lifestyles."

The Times disagrees with Issa's  assessment, they say that ACORN is using all new people, but then again the Times also admits that they are using a document distributed by ACORN and obtained by The Times. Sounds like ACORN is lying the draw attention away from the Issa investigation and the NY Times is swearing by it.

These new local organizations which will supposedly be independent of ACORN, will act as the funnel of cash to the National Organization, allowing the criminal ACORN enterprise to shake off the "bad image" it earned through the $4,000,000 embezzlement charge in Louisiana, the voter fraud charges/convictions in 14 states, and of course the amazing videos created by investigators Hannah Giles/James O'Keefe (the undercover Hooker/Pimp team who exposed so much about ACORN's real intentions).

Using these "independent" organizations as their front for getting cash will give the group an outlet to regain the confidence of fundraisers. 

Yes America, "ACORN it's alive...It's Alive! .... IT'S  ALIVE!!" but it is still an evil monster working to take away your rights. 

Please email me at yidwithlid@aol.com to be put onto my mailing list. Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back tohttp://yidwithlid.blogspot.com

 





--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.