Open Letter to President Barack Obama

Dear Mr. President;
This letter will be posted at changethedebate.blogspot.com as an open letter. So even if this letter never gets to you, it will be available to anyone on in the world that cares to read it. I will also be sending copies to my Senators and Congressman, The Speaker of the House, and both the Majority and Minority leaders of the Senate.
In the interest of full disclosure, I will tell you that I did not vote for you, I do not agree with any of your proposals, your vision for this country, or most of the things I have ever heard you say. The only points you've made with which I agree have been your points on personal responsibility. However, none of your proposals encourage personal responsibility, so maybe like so many things with you, those are just talk.
See, I've got some questions for you. I know you probably won't answer them, but I want to make sure they are asked. And if you actually have any personal courage, you will answer them. That's my challenge to you.
In your Online Town Hall you said that the legalization of marijuana would provide no net benefit to the American economy. Would you care to explain why taking a multi-billion dollar industry from the hands of criminals, putting it into the hands of legal businesses, and taxing it at high luxury rates would not benefit the American economy?
When you authorized Federal funding for new embryonic steam cell lines, you claimed that you would not allow Politics to override good scientific research. What about Global Warming? The American Physics Society has published a paper directly disputing the IPCC's latests findings. Arctic Sea Ice is at the same level it was in 1979 (when recording started). We are in a global cooling trend that has lasted 10 years now. With all of this information available, how can you be honest when you tell us that your cap and trade scheme is scientifically motivated? This amount of evidence in any scientific endeavor would be sufficient to prevent any action on a theory. Only in the political realm would such evidence be ignored for one's own purposes.
The socioeconomic portion of fascism is essentially keeping ownership of the means of production in private hands while control is in the government hands. Considering that we fought a major war a couple of generations ago against fascism, why would you approve Secretary Geithner to purpose complete fascist control over the financial industry? Let us not mince words, Mr. President, what Secretary Geithner has purposed is complete government control over the financial industry, not simple over-site. Nor am I attempting to suggest that you will engage in the strongman and brown-shirt tactics of control common to fascism, just that your Treasury Secretary has requested that level of control over our economy.
Why have you yet to take any responsibility for the mistakes made by your administration? Seriously, your people so far are looking even more incompetent than President Bush's did. And that's saying something.
Why did you think calling out Rush Limbaugh by name would be a good idea? You are the President of the United States of America. Rush Limbaugh is a talk-show host. You're supposed to be above such things. Have some respect for the office, if not yourself.
That's all for now. I'm sure I'll have more for you in good time. Let me be clear about this: I hope your Presidency is a complete failure. I have this hope because I firmly believe that your ideas and actions will harm this country far worse than the damage done by previous government action. I might be wrong in this, but if so, I want to see you, Mr President, explain it. Pretty words and good rhetoric will not work with me, Mr. President. You will want to provide real, non-political answers.

Bailouts, Bonuses, and the Greatest Magic Show on Earth

Are you angry about the AIG bonus payouts? I assume you are aware if you are reading this, but just in case. Basically, between September of 2008 and today, American Insurance Group has received roughly $175,000,000,000 (I'm using the full number for effect here) from the Federal government because it had decided that AIG was 'too big fail'. I'm not going to claim the knowledge or precognition to say that AIG was or was not so large and connected that a failure would have caused a cascade right across the economy and crashed everything. I will point out that Congress has no power to provide such funds nor to grant the power to do so to any body, public or private. Though that is not what is in discussion today you should keep it mind.
Last week, it was announced that AIG is paying out about $165,000,000 (or >0.1%) in contract bonuses to around 75 workers in its financial products devision. I have three immediate reactions to this news. First... How can I get me some that? I'd love to be a millionaire,and I'm not ashamed to admit it. Second, AIG was very, very stupid to pay these bonuses out without at least trying to find a way around it. And finally, so what?
Now, I'm sure that if you are angry about the AIG bonuses, you have to wonder why I am not. I do pay taxes, I often complain about government waste, and one would think that I wouldn't want a private company spending my money recklessly. And in all three cases you would be correct. However, please consider my counter arguments:
1) AIG was contractually obligated to pay those bonuses. Period. Thanks to the Federal governments inane choice to waste our money on a failing company rather than having that company go through a bankruptcy is the root cause of this issue.
2) Our government was aware that these bonuses were in AIG's employee contracts. In fact, language was inserted into both 'rescue' packages to protect bonuses just like these.
3) Are you seriously going to get upset over AIG spending $167,000,000 when our government has ransomed our futures to the tune of $3,400,000,000,000 this year alone? Just so you know, the 2008 pre-bailout budget was 2.7 trillion dollars. That 3.4 trillion in the current budget? Doesn't include nearly 2 trillion in 'rescue' we've had so far.
So yeah, my initial reaction to the whole AIG situation is a big 'so what?'. My reaction to the reactions of our so called leaders? The same phrase keeps going through my mind,'pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.' That's the phrase I keep hearing, but it doesn't really describe what our leaders are doing to us.
So, I've got a different question for you. Have you ever been to a magic show? You'll find that all magic shows have two things in common. First, they have a very attractive assistant in a skimpy outfit. Second, they have a bright white glove on their left hand. These two things are what makes the magic show work. They provide the misdirection.
You see, misdirection is the center of a magic show. The performer doesn't want you to really see what he (or his right hand) are actually doing as he sets up the trick. We play along when we watch the show; we're there to be entertained and that assistant really is very attractive. We all know that magic shows are illusion, we can't get upset when the magician tricks us. It's all in good fun and for entertainment. When we agree to being suckered, we can enjoy it. But I don't recall signing up for this magic show.
Now, I've been making the case that our so-called leaders are engaged in an act of misdirection. But from what are they trying to distract us? Therein lies the question. The answers differ depending on about whom you are speaking.
Congressman Barny Franks wrote the laws that created the sub-prime mortgage industry. He has reaped the benefits from such companies as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG. He was payed to keep looking the other way as these companies mortgaged our futures.
Senator Chris Dodd also wrote the laws that created the sub-prime mortgage industry. He also has reaped the benefits from such companies as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG. He is even the one who added the language protecting the AIG (and other) bonuses.
President Barack Obama has submitted a budget which doubles the size of the Federal deficit for the next year and will double the size of the Federal debt within ten years. These numbers are only accurate as long as you accept his accounting tricks that show reductions (such as claiming Iraq spending at 2007 levels for the next ten years, then canceling them to show savings). He has pushed through a $675,000,000,000 'down payment' on socializing medicine. He refuses to address the economy destroying unfunded mandates of Social Security and Medicare. He is trying to push through a cap-and-trade program that, irregardless of its costs, will put the Federal Government fully in charge of the energy back-bone of this country, and essentially in charge of the whole economy.
This is called fascism folks. Funny me, I seem to remember a war a couple of generations back. It was a big one, too. And the enemies in that war were fascists. And this is why your government is providing you with the greatest magic show on earth.
To keep you distracted from the real threat; complete and total take-over by the Federal Government. Now, you might be okay with this while Barack Obama and his ilk are in charge. But Federal power has a tendency to hang around, and who will we have after President Obama? And honestly, if he's willing to use straw-men like Rush Limbaugh and AIG to keep you distracted from his agenda, what else is he willing to do?

Another victim in the War on Personal Freedom

Michael Phelps was caught kissing a bong. I say 'kissing a bong' because that's all the picture of him smoking actually shows, and even then it's questionable if it's actually him. Doesn't really make much difference, as he did admit it was him and has issued his apology. So far, he's lost a sponsorship and won a three-month suspension. The local sheriff is under pressure to bring charges as if Phelps were just any other man.
So, we can add Michael Phelps, fourteen time Olympic Gold Medal winner, to the list of millions of political victims of the United States Federal Government's War on Personal Freedom. What's interesting is that we cannot add the names William J Clinton, George W Bush, or Barack H Obama to that list. Yes, those are the names of the three previous presidents of the United States. Which means that the three of the men tasked by the Constitution, and the people, to enforce the laws of the United States have broken those laws. Not only were these men not punished, but eventually were rewarded by reaching the highest level of elected office in this country. President Bush didn't admit to his actions, though the evidence is enough to state he did it, but both Presidents Clinton and Obama admitted to it before their election. Not only do we have these three men, but scores of current and previous members of Congress, and at least 40% of the American public have admitted to smoking the ganja at least once.
Despite his actions, President Obama has made no indication that he intends to address the problem that is America's War on Personal Freedom. In case it's not clear, I will not use the euphemistic War on Drugs to address America's unconstitutional drug policies. In this country, even though it is not currently in effect, the American government can pull anyone over the age of 18, press them into uniform, and send them to fight, kill, or die in the name of the government. Yet, we cannot be trusted with the substances we can put within our own bodies? Or to act responsibly? Are we adults, or are we children?
There are several arguments against the War on Personal Freedom. To address my chosen moniker, I will start with the philosophical. Obviously I believe that this country is supposed to be about freedom. It says so in our founding documents, it's a common theme in our political debates, and in most of our patriotic songs we hear it mentioned. Yet, our government seems to feel that freedom should not include the recreational use of particular substances. Currently, the number of deaths caused by illegal drug overdose is less than 14,000 per year. While it is possible to argue that this number could be raised if currently illegal drugs were made legal, the real question becomes how many could this be, and what is the cost of avoid them?
Take a look a this report of the number of deaths from drug overdose in Belgium, where most drugs illegal here in America are freely available. It tops out just under 140 deaths in 1994. In 1994, there were just over ten million people in Belgium, so total deaths are 0.00014% of the population per year. If we apply that to America's current population of just over three hundred million people, we get around 42,000. This may seem like a large number of people, but it's still barely more than one thousandth of one percent of the people in this country, and would account for 1.7% of the 2,431,351 deaths that would occur if these drugs were legal (this result comes from this report and adding the 28,000 difference between current and possible overdose deaths). So, that's roughly 28,000 people possibly saved by the War on Personal Freedom, but what are the costs?
For now, I am going to stick with the philosophical, but I will be going into the economic, diplomatic, and other costs later. The philosophical costs are pretty straight forward. Consider the story of Kathryn Johnston. This 92 year old Atlanta woman was killed in an illegal drug raid in 2006. Or the story of Tarika Wilson and her toddler son. Tarika was killed in a questionable drug raid and her young son was wounded. Stories like these abound throughout the United States, people killed, maimed, and tortured because our police and our courts will do anything for a drug bust. Half a million people rotting in jail for non-violent drug offenses. Time again to return to Franklin's quote about security and freedom. How much of either did Kathryn and Tarika have? What about Tarika's young son? It should be important to point out, if you didn't read the article in question, that Katrhyn Johnston broke no laws, not even drug laws. This is the philosophical cost of America's War on Personal Freedom, the death of innocents and the loss of all of our freedom.
Now for my Socratic argument. Think on these things and see to what truths they lead you. If we are conducting a 'War on Drugs', against whom do we fight? It can't be the drugs, they are not people and can have no individual motivation. While it's called a war, it is conducted by the policing agencies of the federal, state, and local governments, so the enemy cannot be a foreign nation. Who are the victims in this war? What about collateral damage?
To the legal argument against this war. When the Constitution was written, it was written as a list of clearly enumerated rights provided to the government. This was the concept that was supposed to be written into the tenth amendment to protect future generations against government expansion. While successive Supreme Courts have ignored this particular prevision to the benefit of themselves and the Federal Government, it still hold legal weight. I have written previously that America is supposed to be about self-governance, and that the legal structure of the United States is supposed to support this. Read carefully over the Constitution. You will find no mention of Congress having the right to ban any product out right. Indeed, consider the Nineteenth Amendment. It bans the production, distribution, and sale of alcohol. If Congress had the power to ban any product it chose, why the need for such an amendment? Because Congress does not have this power. And any power not provided to the Congress is held by the States and the People there-in.
As the legal argument is so straight-froward, I'll move on the economic. For an up to the minute cost, feel free to see this link. At time of this writing, the combined monies in the War on Personal Freedom total over five billion. Yeah, we're barely over a month into 2009 and already our governments have spent five billion dollars fighting this war. If spending continues, the cost in 2009 will be more than sixty billion. This doesn't include the costs of pushing a multi-billion dollar industry into the hands of criminals and generally out of our economy.
This is the important part of the economic argument. Black markets exist outside the white markets that make up an economy. How much is estimated for the value of this trade? Some estimates have been as high as half a trillion dollars world wide, though around $300 billion is more accurate. American's alone spent nearly fifty billion dollars (additional statistics sited here on that site) on drugs in 2000. So, not only is the United States going to spend $60 billion dollars on its true illegal war, but it's going to allow the possible tax income on an additional $60 billion go because of it.
What else could this large sum provide in the real economy? Wealth begets wealth. Any business reinvests in itself, allowing for a more productive work-force and economy. The secondary costs of this war cannot be estimated. There is no way to tell what could be earned if the profits of the drug trade were in the legal economy and could be reinvested and set to work like the profits of all other products.
Then there are the human costs. I've discussed some of them previously, but now I'm going to talk about the secondary costs. Consider this: In Los Angeles alone there were 587 gang related homicides in 2001. One third of these victims are generally non-gang related, or innocent bystanders. These would be the 'collateral damage' of America's War on Personal Freedom. Gangs are supported by the money of illicit drug trafficking (and other crime). If drugs were made legal, the funds which support these gangs would dry up, and the gangs themselves would become much less of a threat. Without the money provided by the drug trade, they would lose the ability to purchase weapons, bribe officials, and engage in other crimes. While I am not trying to argue that gangs would go away entirely, they would loose a great deal of their power and with it, the threat would be reduced.
Our illegal drug war doesn't just cost Americans. It effects our relations with the world, our neighbors, and our relations with them. Mexico is currently the hardest hit by this. Drug traffickers use the country as a staging point to smuggle their product into the US. These drug cartels are in open war against the Mexican government, and all actions taken by that government do not steam the tide. These cartels engage in kidnapping, extortion, and other crimes to support their main business; the distribution of drugs. Mexico isn't the only casualty. Operation Just Cause in 1989 against Panama to remove Manuel Noriega was part of our War on Personal Freedom, as Noriega had financed his actions through the trade of cocaine. Columbia has only in the past decade managed to fight down the drug cartels into a manageable threat, and the cost of thousands of lives. Even today, our brave solders fight the Taliban and others in Afghanistan who are financed by the production and selling of poppies for heron production.
After an exhausting search, the only answer I can find for the number of deaths by gang-related violence in the US as whole in 2007 was 15,000. That's sixty billion dollars spent here, increased violence in other countries, complications in the War on Terror and other diplomatic problems, lost tax revenue, and lost freedom for all Americans. And for what? So that people can die by others' violent actions rather than their own folly.
I do not advocate the recreational use of any drugs, legal or illegal. At no point should any of my arguments be construed such as to suggest that people should use these substances for any reason. However, in the light of the costs and the possible benefits, especially the cost in American freedom and safety from inappropriate government action, how can anyone continue to call the War on Personal Freedom anything but what it is?
To our so-called leaders: We are adults. Treat us as such and stop this costly and illegal war.

Michael Phelps was caught kissing a bong. I say 'kissing a bong' because that's all the picture of him smoking actually shows, and even then it's questionable if it's actually him. Doesn't really make much difference, as he did admit it was him and has issued his apology. So far, he's lost a sponsorship and won a three-month suspension. The local sheriff is under pressure to bring charges as if Phelps were just any other man.
So, we can add Michael Phelps, fourteen time Olympic Gold Medal winner, to the list of some half-million political victims of the United States Federal Government's War on Personal Freedom. What's interesting is that we cannot add the names William J Clinton, George W Bush, or Barack H Obama to that list. Yes, those are the names of the three previous presidents of the United States. Which means that the three of the men tasked by the Constitution, and the people, to enforce the laws of the United States have broken those laws. Not only were these men not punished, but eventually were rewarded by reaching the highest level of elected office in this country. President Bush didn't admit to his actions, though the evidence is enough to state he did it, but both Presidents Clinton and Obama admitted to it before their election. Not only do we have these three men, but scores of current and previous members of Congress, and at least 40% of the American public have admitted to smoking the ganja at least once.
Despite his actions, President Obama has made no indication that he intends to address the problem that is America's War on Personal Freedom. In case it's not clear, I will not use the euphemistic War on Drugs to address America's unconstitutional drug policies. In this country, even though it is not currently in effect, the American government can pull anyone over the age of 18, press them into uniform, and send them to fight, kill, or die in the name of the government. Yet, we cannot be trusted with the substances we can put within our own bodies? Or to act responsibly? Are we adults, or are we children?
There are several arguments against the War on Personal Freedom. To address my chosen moniker, I will start with the philosophical. Obviously I believe that this country is supposed to be about freedom. It says so in our founding documents, it's a common theme in our political debates, and in most of our patriotic songs we hear it mentioned. Yet, our government seems to feel that freedom should not include the recreational use of particular substances. Currently, the number of deaths caused by illegal drug overdose is less than 14,000 per year (Using . While it is possible to argue that this number could be raised if currently illegal drugs were made legal, the real question becomes how many could this be, and what is the cost of avoid them?
Take a look a this report of the number of deaths from drug overdose in Belgium, where most drugs illegal here in America are freely available. It tops out just under 140 deaths in 1994. In 1994, there were just over ten million people in Belgium, so total deaths are 0.00014% of the population per year. If we apply that to America's current population of just over three hundred million people, we get around 42,000. This may seem like a large number of people, but it's still barely more than one ten-thousandth of one percent of the people in this country, and would account for 1.7% of the 2,431,351 deaths that would occur if these drugs were legal (this result comes from this report and adding the 28,000 difference between current and possible overdose deaths). So, that's roughly 28,000 people possibly saved by the War on Personal Freedom, but what are the costs?
For now, I am going to stick with the philosophical, but I will be going into the economic, diplomatic, and other costs later. The philosophical costs are pretty straight forward. Consider the story of Kathryn Johnston. This 92 year old Atlanta woman was killed in an illegal drug raid in 2006. Or the story of Tarika Wilson and her toddler son. Tarika was killed in a questionable drug raid and her young son was wounded. Stories like these abound throughout the United States, people killed, maimed, and tortured because our police and our courts will do anything for a drug bust. Half a million people rotting in jail for non-violent drug offenses. Time again to return to Franklin's quote about security and freedom. How much of either did Kathryn and Tarika have? What about Tarika's young son? It should be important to point out, if you didn't read the article in question, that Katrhyn Johnston broke no laws, not even drug laws. This is the philosophical cost of America's War on Personal Freedom, the death of innocents and the loss of all of our freedom.
Now for my Socratic argument. Think on these things and see to what truths they lead you. If we are conducting a 'War on Drugs', against whom do we fight? It can't be the drugs, they are not people and can have no individual motivation. While it's called a war, it is conducted by the policing agencies of the federal, state, and local governments, so the enemy cannot be a foreign nation. Who are the victims in this war? What about collateral damage?
To the legal argument against this war. When the Constitution was written, it was written as a list of clearly enumerated rights provided to the government. This was the concept that was supposed to be written into the tenth amendment to protect future generations against government expansion. While successive Supreme Courts have ignored this particular prevision to the benefit of themselves and the Federal Government, it still hold legal weight. I have written previously that America is supposed to be about self-governance, and that the legal structure of the United States is supposed to support this. Read carefully over the Constitution. You will find no mention of Congress having the right to ban any product out right. Indeed, consider the Nineteenth Amendment. It bans the production, distribution, and sale of alcohol. If Congress had the power to ban any product it chose, why the need for such an amendment? Because Congress does not have this power. And any power not provided to the Congress is held by the States and the People there-in.
As the legal argument is so straight-froward, I'll move on the economic. For an up to the minute cost, feel free to see this link. At time of this writing, the combined monies in the War on Personal Freedom total over five billion. Yeah, we're barely over a month into 2009 and already our governments have spent five billion dollars fighting this war. If spending continues, the cost in 2009 will be more than sixty billion. This doesn't include the costs of pushing a multi-billion dollar industry into the hands of criminals and generally out of our economy.
This is the important part of the economic argument. Black markets exist outside the white markets that make up an economy. How much is estimated for the value of this trade? Some estimates have been as high as half a trillion dollars world wide, though around $300 billion is more accurate. American's alone spent nearly fifty billion dollars (additional statistics sited here on that site) on drugs in 2000. So, not only is the United States going to spend $60 billion dollars on its true illegal war, but it's going to allow the possible tax income on an additional $60 billion go because of it.
What else could this large sum provide in the real economy? Wealth begets wealth. Any business reinvests in itself, allowing for a more productive work-force and economy. The secondary costs of this war cannot be estimated. There is no way to tell what could be earned if the profits of the drug trade were in the legal economy and could be reinvested and set to work like the profits of all other products.
Then there are the human costs. I've discussed some of them previously, but now I'm going to talk about the secondary costs. Consider this: In Los Angeles alone there were 587 gang related homicides in 2001. One third of these victims are generally non-gang related, or innocent bystanders. These would be the 'collateral damage' of America's War on Personal Freedom. Gangs are supported by the money of illicit drug trafficking (and other crime). If drugs were made legal, the funds which support these gangs would dry up, and the gangs themselves would become much less of a threat. Without the money provided by the drug trade, they would lose the ability to purchase weapons, bribe officials, and engage in other crimes. While I am not trying to argue that gangs would go away entirely, they would loose a great deal of their power and with it, the threat would be reduced.
Our illegal drug war doesn't just cost Americans. It effects our relations with the world, our neighbors, and our relations with them. Mexico is currently the hardest hit by this. Drug traffickers use the country as a staging point to smuggle their product into the US. These drug cartels are in open war against the Mexican government, and all actions taken by that government do not steam the tide. These cartels engage in kidnapping, extortion, and other crimes to support their main business; the distribution of drugs. Mexico isn't the only casualty. Operation Just Cause in 1989 against Panama to remove Manuel Noriega was part of our War on Personal Freedom, as Noriega had financed his actions through the trade of cocaine. Columbia has only in the past decade managed to fight down the drug cartels into a manageable threat, and the cost of thousands of lives. Even today, our brave solders fight the Taliban and others in Afghanistan who are financed by the production and selling of poppies for heron production.
After an exhausting search, the only answer I can find for the number of deaths by gang-related violence in the US as whole in 2007 was 15,000. That's three thousand more than my estimate of the number saved by this illegal war. That's sixty billion dollars spent here, increased violence in other countries, complications in the War on Terror and other diplomatic problems, lost tax revenue, and lost freedom for all Americans. And for what? So that people can die by others' violent actions rather than their own folly.
I do not advocate the recreational use of any drugs, legal or illegal. At no point should any of my arguments be construed such as to suggest that people should use these substances for any reason. However, in the light of the costs and the possible benefits, especially the cost in American freedom and safety from inappropriate government action, how can anyone continue to call the War on Personal Freedom anything but what it is?
To our so-called leaders: We are adults. Treat us as such and stop this costly and illegal war.

Serendipity

Check out this article today in the UK Guardian by Jonathan Freedland. While I may disagree with his opinion on the recent Israeli action in Gaza, it illustrates my point about the West's general treatment of Israel quite nicely.
So, thank you, Mr Freedland. You made my point very well. Though, if I may, the anti-semetism running rampant in Europe is neither new nor is it separated from the condemnation of Operation Cast Lead. I would say that the condemnation is coming from the antisemitism. The sooner you, and people like you, accept that, the sooner we might be able to talk about this situation honestly. While I'm not one to call 'racism' to defend my position, I do think that the West's treatment of Israel is the result of antisemitism. There is no defensible reason to treat Israel, and Jews in general, the way it is being treated.
And yes, I am saying the Mr. Freedland's position on Operation Cast Lead is indefensible. To condem Israel for this defensive action, to focus on the exaggerated deaths claimed by Hamas rather than the known deaths of Israelis from Hamas rocket attacks, and to claim that the recent increase in antisemitic action in England and elsewhere is a result of this action is morally wrong. That is exactly the point I was trying to make in my previous posting.

Israel and Hamas

The Palestinian people have long suffered. They have had foreign invaders ruling their lands for thousands of years, starting with the Babylonians, then the Persians, then the Romans, and many more until finally the British drove the Ottomans out during the First World War and ruled until Israeli independence in1948. It is important to point out that when I say 'the Palestinian people', I refer to all the people of Palestine, not just the Muslims who have adopted the title for themselves. Understanding this history will take us a long way in understanding the desires of both the Israelis and the people now called the Palestinians.
It is the natural desire of people to rule themselves, both as individuals and as a nation. As I believe it to be the best state of Man for him to rule himself, please keep in mind that I support a free and independent Palestinian state for these people. It is what they deserve as human beings, and a goal which should be desired by all. However, this goal will not be realized until such time that Hamas and other similar organizations are discredited, unsupported, and disbanded.
Before I elaborate on this statement, I will review the modern history behind the current situation. As I said before, the Palestinian people have long suffered, and at no time is this more true than the treatment of the Islamic people we now call Palestinians during the last half of the twentieth century. If you think this a statement against Israel, please read on and see that it is not. Israel has not always acted perfectly, but they are not the source of Palestinian suffering.
While most claim that Israeli independence was granted by the UN, this is not the whole story. Hundreds of thousands of Jews emigrated to Palestine during British rule, even when Britain restricted their immigration during the 1930s due to Arabic pressures. During the Holocaust and directly after, this level of emigration increased dramatically, and the Jews of Palestine began a series of diplomatic and military actions to gain their independence. This was acknowledged by the British and the UN in 1947. It was at this time that Israel and Trans-Jordan were created to be the free lands for the Jewish and Muslim residents of the lands.
Israel granted full citizenship to its Muslim people, complete with freedom to practice their religion, keep their property, and all the rights granted to their Jewish citizens. Their Arabic neighbors did not do the same, but instead seized Jewish property, attempted forced conversions, and used other tactics to remove or drive out their Jewish residents. Their actions succeeded well and more Jewish people emigrated into the new Israel nation. There is no real evidence to suggest that the Israelis wanted anything but to live free and in peace in their ancestral homeland.
They would not have this option. In May, 1948 six different Arabic nations declared war and invaded Israel. They were supported by the Muslim citizens of Israel, many of whom provided passive or active support in the effort. They provided guidance through the country, food and logging to solders, and some even joined in active military action against the Israeli Defense Forces. Perhaps Israel was wrong, but while driving out the invaders, the swept along the Muslim citizens as well and forced them all from the country. I say perhaps they were wrong, but I do not think so. While many innocent Muslims were certainly caught by this action and forced from their homes and lands, the Israels had little choice in what they did. A new, young nation cannot always take the time to determine who exactly is a threat when it is defending itself against total destruction.
The real question is, what was the reward to the Muslim Israelis (not yet called Palestinians) who supported their Muslim brethren? They were denied citizenship in Arabic lands, forced into refugee camps, and left to rot by the Arabic governments where they were. And so here they have remained until this day, some sixty years later. As a comparison, consider the people of Tibet, driven from their homes by the Chinese into India. These refugees, with no cultural, religions, or ethnic ties to their host country, are given full rights of citizenship by the Indians.
There is also the matter of the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights. All three of these areas were captured by Israel during defensive actions against Arabic aggressive wars. While this exasperated the refugee situation, these occupations were necessary defensive actions. The Golan Heights have been returned, and Gaza was granted full independence in 2005, with all Jewish citizens forcefully removed by the Israeli government. The short-term occupation of the Sinai by Israel in the 1950s was a response to Egyptian refusal to allow shipping through the Suez Canal and was one of the few aggressive actions taken by the country. They withdrew under UN pressure, only to have Egypt again close the area to Israeli shipping. This action was later stopped due to diplomatic action.
This has been the history of Israel. Constant aggressive action by their Arabic neighbors, UN pressure against them, and being demonized by the world for the plight of what we now call the Palestinians. In less than 30 years, they fought no less than five defensive wars against multiple Arabic countries. Despite these monumental challenges, they have not only survived but they have thrived. They have managed to maintain an open, free, and prosperous society that still provides all their citizens with all the rights that we here in American consider basic. It is a diplomatic country, with freedom of speech, press, and religion. They are an egalitarian society, with women and ethnic minorities in top positions.
And what of the Palestinians? I have often said 'what we now call' in this essay, and for good reason. These Muslims had no identifier until then 1970s, when the Palestinian Liberalization Organization under Yasser Arafat began to call them Palestinians as a PR ploy. Since that time, pressure against Israel has only increased, despite everything they have done to make life better for the Palestinians.
Consider the withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. After three decades of building infrastructure in the area, the Israelis left it all intact and removed all their citizens from the area. The Palestinians had roads, schools, hospitals, water and power, orchards, hydroponic farms . . . in short, everything they needed to provide for a prosperous free country. What has Hamas, supposedly in the name of these people, done with it? They indoctrinate the children to hate Jews with propaganda, terrorize their people with threats, take all their foreign aide to purchase weapons, and use the homes of innocents as launching points for their unguided rockets. They send their young men, and women, into Israel with explosives to target civilians. For more than three years and over 6,000 rocket attacks, with hundreds of deaths, the Israelis responded with diplomatic action and embargoes. They still allowed humanitarian aide to pass, but attempted to stop what weapon shipments they could. They still provided power and water to Gaza.
And when they finally did take military action, how did they do so? Was it carpet bombing and gas attacks? No, it was precision bomb attacks preceded with thousands of telephone calls and leaflets letting the innocents of Gaza know what was coming, despite the lost of strategic and tactical surprise. They have consistently chosen to use troops on the ground over air strikes to minimize civilian causalities despite the increased danger to Israeli forces. And how does the UN and the Western world respond? With more derision, a focus on the exaggerated claims of Palestinian deaths by Hamas, and a forced cease-fire agreement that Hamas violated within days.
Hamas and their fellow organizations have used the Palestinians as cannon fodder. They send their 'suicide' bombers into Israeli citizens, targeting civilians. They force their way into private homes using physical intimidation to set up their launch pads. They hide weapons and military supplies under mosques, hospitals, and apartment buildings. When the Israelis come, they use more women and children as human shields, then they cry to the world about the 'horrors' visited upon them.
When are we in the West, and especially America, going to stop playing their game? When are we going to denounce this barbarism for what it is? When are we going to tell the UN to support Israel or loose American support? We shouldn't support Israel because it is a Jewish state. Israel is nation of freedom in a land of oppression. Before the invasion of Iraq, it was the only Middle Eastern country to practice any form of democracy, to provide freedom of speech and press, equal rights to women and other minorities, and it's still the only country to provide full freedom of religion. Don't these things mean anything to us?
When are we going to acknowledged that Hamas and similar organizations are the true source of modern Palestinian suffering? When are we going to stand up together and name these organizations for the barbaric tribes of death that they are? In the past three years, the UN Human Rights council has passed more than 20 resolutions against Israel, but not a single one against Hamas, Hezbollah, or any other terrorist organization. These organizations feed their people into a meat grinder day after day while the UN and Western media organizations denounce the Israelis who have put themselves at risk to protect the innocents of their own country and the Palestinians. These actions are completely and totally unacceptable to me, and should be to any society that would call itself civilized.
Every statement that isn't my opinion in the essay is verifiable through a quick and easy Google search using key terms. Feel free to verify. I will stand beside my support of Israel and against Hamas until my last breath. If you disagree with my opinion here, I ask you only one question.
Are you proud to support Hamas?

President Obama and the Current Crisis

Congratulations are in order. To President Obama, I give my congratulations freely and openly. It was a hard-run campaign against tough and seasoned opponents. You not only won; you did so decisively and mostly honorably and for that, I honor you. Know that until such time as you step down, I will hope you are a good and strong President, that you lead this country with honor, integrity, and intelligence, and that your time as President is successful, not in the political sense, but in the governmental.
To those closer to my own political ideology; we owe our President full faith and loyalty, even when we disagree. Even though we do not agree with our President on many things, we should take pride in what he, and this county, have managed to accomplish. President Obama is not just the first black President. He's the first minority to be elected to the highest office in any country, anywhere, in the history of the world. For that, we can all be proud. Perhaps we are finally turning the corner away from our past and towards a better future when it comes to race relations. While most of us have long sense abandoned the immorality of racism, some of us have not and we need to move past the assumption. Much of that now falls on the President's shoulders, and how he approaches his unique position. Some of that falls on our shoulders, and how we express our disagreements and our difficulties.
I would like to say that I now have hope for the future. I didn't particularly like President Bush's style, his communication, or many of his policies. He grew the size of our government more than any president before him, increased spending without actually paying for it, and involved us in two foreign wars without the necessary increases in military force to provide for them. He continued the long standing policy of ignoring our boarders, at a time when security alone demanded strong attention. Yes, I could sit here for a long time and discuss what President Bush did wrong. But at least he tried to maintain the mostly free-market economy which provides this country with all of its power, political, economic, and military.
With President Obama, I have no such hope. He's already working towards increasing the level of government involvement in healthcare. That's one sixth of the economy. He talks about pushing some form of cap and trade or carbon tax, affecting the energy back-bone of our economy. His tax policies clearly demonstrate a desire to cripple the production of this country. Then we have this despicable 'stimulus' package.
The first problem is that we do not have an economic crises. I know, we are in a recession. Large amounts of wealth have been lost, but it's not real wealth. Homes are still standing, property is still available, and production moves along briskly. People are being laid off as business struggle for the capital to maintain previous business levels, but all of these are temporary situations.
What we have is a government crises. The very source of this mess isn't in the private sector, and it isn't going to be fixed until that source is acknowledged. Government intervention is what has caused the crises. As with most things, it started with good intentions, but as the desire to good things no matter the real world costs increased, so did the possible damages that would occur when things finally fell apart. Most people tend to think of the Free Market as a theory, or an idea. In this they are incorrect. The Free Market is a force, like gravity or nuclear forces. It does what it does. We can mitigate, control, and effect, but we cannot control. As we grow to better understand the nature of that force, we can plan on it and we can turn it to our advantage, but we still will not have actual control.
To help illustrate my point, allow me to use a metaphor. Think of the Mississippi river. The whole of it's banks are levied, there are locks and controls all along its length to try and mitigate flooding. Most of the time they work fine, because most of the time the force of the river is well understood. It's a function of the amount of water currently being drained into the river. When rain fall is unusually heavy however, the levies cannot hold the banks. One of my strongest memories of my childhood comes from flying out of St. Louis in '94. The whole of the city was under water, the heavy storms having flooded the banks.
While the levies work great upriver, downriver can be a very different story. Levies may control flooding, most of the time, but they also increase the amount of force behind the river, causing it to flow faster the more the shores are levied. This is illustrated by the trouble Baton Rouge has with flooding. There are several rivers in and around the city, the largest being the Mississippi itself, but several tributaries are near the city and empty into it close by. Even the smallest rainfall can create flooding throughout the city in a very short amount of time. These factors almost certainly contributed to the massive flooding caused by Hurricane Katrina a few years ago.
The levies are necessary, as people live all along the banks and without them, the Mississippi would return it's normal meandering path and fill its floodplains, making life there impossible. Yet understanding the effect of the levies can help us understand how to plan and prepare for when they fail. Understanding market forces is no different.
While my metaphor is imperfect, it can help to understand how the current crises is not one caused by the market. Just as levies were built to try and focus the Mississippi, government policy was enacted to try and focus the market towards politically desirable ends. What were these policies? They were primarily the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 and later revisions to that act, and the establishment of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in
conjunction with other rules such as the mark-to-market rule
What do these policies do, and why are they the main cause of the current crises? Again, it starts with good intentions. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 established by law that a loan could not be refused due to the location of the borrower and that lenders had to provide services to anyone within their sphere of business. In short, no 'redlining' and removing whole neighborhoods out of your range of service. This has minor impact on the lending business, forcing them to accept greater risk. However, the lending market was able to absorb this greater risk and things went along fine. The earlier establishment of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, with their congressional orders to increase home ownership, further mitigated the dangers of this greater risk. Yet they increased the danger downriver. By having large organizations absorbing the greatest level of risk, it concentrated the risk that one of these would eventually falter due to defaults. Starting to sound familiar yet?
Enter the mark-to-market rule. Again, it starts with good intentions. The mark-to-market rule requires companies to mark all assets at their current market value. Just like the levies on a river, during normal times this allows for better transparency, more honest reporting, and an easier time understanding a company's true worth. But what happens when the rains come? When the value of a particular type of asset, such as a mortgage, begins to plummet, the market cannot provide a value and the asset must be marked as a full loss. The property may still be there, the borrower may still be paying in full every month, and the property may still be of the same monetary value in resell, but the holder of the mortgage must write it down as a full lose because the asset has no value in the current market.
Rivers flow into one another. When the Mississippi is filled with water from heavy rains, it has less room for the waters from its tributaries. The further downriver one moves, the more effect this will have. While the Missouri may be able to empty easily into the Mississippi, the Red River will have more problems, and its level will also rise in response. The market is not much different. As financial companies struggle to determine their current assets, they are unable to provide loans to other companies. Credit begins to freeze, other companies struggle to pay their bills, provide production, and meet demand. Some companies are forced to release some workers, and others become worried, cutting down on spending and thus cutting back on demand. This cuts into more businesses, creating more lay-offs and a higher demand for credit to try and keep current production . . . And thus the levies created to protect us from the river break and it all comes spilling out.
Under this light it becomes apparent that any stimulus is probably not going to work without first addressing the underlying causes of the problem. And our political leadership has yet to try and address these underlying problems. In fact, this so-called leadership has yet to even acknowledge the effect of these policies on our economy.
Then there are the problems with the bill itself. It's filled with fluff spending projects. Support for the arts, community action groups, and many more of the usual dredge of useless government programs that will have little to no effect. Even the Congressional Budget Office has published findings that most of the money will not work itself into the economy for years, so how much immediate stimulus can it actually provide?
Further more, from where is the money going to come? Despite apparent popular belief, government does not create wealth. Its budget of 1.6 trillion dollars is all raised from taxes on the economy as a whole. Before it can spend anything, it must first get that money from somewhere. It can raise it through taxes, which will fall as the economy shrinks, it can borrow, or it can print more money. Any money raised in taxes is pulled from the economy, borrowed money creates a greater debt to be paid later, increasing the demand for taxes later, and printing more money creates inflation, eroding whatever effect spending it would have in the first place.
Pay close attention to the numbers here. The federal budget is 1.6 trillion dollars. That's all of its current spending projects, including so-called entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare. The federal fiscal year runs from October through September. That means that the stimulus plans passed this fiscal year already account for more than 1.5 trillion dollars, or very near the whole of the budget. In order to pay for all of this, the federal government is going to have to borrow, tax, or print money equal to its entire budget. How badly will that effect the future economy?
I sit here and I watch this slow-speed train wreck, wondering if there is anything I can do. Am I to be a modern Cassandra, to watch the destruction of our future, to call out against it, yet to go unheard and unbelieved? What am I to do?
The short answer is that there is nothing I can do. I can look out for myself, do what I can to ensure my own survival, but little more. I will continue to put my voice out there to be heard by those who wish the hear it, and maybe it will be enough. I highly doubt it, but still I can try. And, I can give my thanks to the House Republicans and their Democrat colleges who voted against this slow suicide. You men and women are true heroes on this day. Others may degrade you, others may ask why it took you so long.
For this American, I cannot find the desire to care why it took so long. You men and women stood for principle this day, and you did what you could. Keep up the good work. For the 244 of you who voted for this monstrosity, I hope you are voted out next term. You deserve greater punishment for your attempt to destroy my children's futures.