New School Politics

If you're a first time visitor, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed, which will keep you up to date with all the latest New School Politics posts. Thanks for visiting!

Everyone knew it was coming, but now its official as Hillary Clinton has just announced her intention to run for the presidency. Clinton, Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, North Carolina Senator John Edwards, and Arizona Senator John McCain appear to be the major contenders at this point. Just a day ago, I received a phone call from a member of the Romney campaign asking for a contribution. It is safe to assume that the other contenders are all gathering funds as well. Without question, Hillary Clinton is the 800-pound gorilla in the room. She is the shrewdest politician in the Democratic Party, if not in all ofAmerican politics. Her fundraising abilities are rivaled only by those of her husband. No matter how good Obama’s smile is, he will have a tough time surpassing Hillary. Her abilities as a tactician were evident just this week when she proposed the troop cap in Iraq. During the debate over cutting off funding to the soldiers, Hillary Clinton was noticeably absent from Capitol Hill. Where was she? In Iraq and Afghanistan. She avoided becoming caught in the bi-partisan debate by being the only American politician in Iraq or Afghanistan at the time. When she returned, she proposed a centrist plan that would make it impossible for anyone on the right to say that she was against the troops or cutting the funding of American forces, and no one on the left can claim that she is still supporting the war. There are not many politicians with that level of strategic prowess. Many Americans do not like Hillary. There are millions of Americans who believe that she is cold, calculating, and mean (a redundant statement to make about a politician). As a Republican, if any Democrat were elected, I would want it to be Hillary. She is a hawk on defense, a staunch supporter of Israel, and her husband was one of the most conservative fiscal presidents in contemporary American history. While she may not have the Obama smile, she does have experience. Once the debates start and the campaigns heat up, she will crush her opponents. There are few politicians in America with her clear syntax, dominant debating skills, and air of authority. When she is on the debating podium for the national debates, there will not be one person in the Democratic Party who can stand up to her. She may come off as cold to some but she will decimate Obama and Edwards and may even outshine some of her Republican opponents. At this moment, she is the clear front-runner in either party. Any Democrat has an advantage in the next election as they automatically can distance themselves from the president (something most Americans will value). The only family in America with superior fund raising ability is the Bush family, they will be putting their weight behind McCain. I am dismayed to say that McCain’s party may be his biggest disadvantage, no matter the candidate; a democrat will have an advantage in the next election. Right now Hillary Clinton is the person to beat andit will take more than just money to win against her.  My bet is that she will take the primary.

Popularity: 9% [?]

I could not help but post this very entertaining (…it made me laugh, it made me cry) news story: 

To defend himself against athorities, a New Hampshire man convicted of federal tax evasion has armed himself and locked his house down and says that he will actively fight arrest.

CONCORD, N.H. —  A man who has holed up with armed supporters in his fortress-like house for most of his tax evasion trial was found guilty Thursday, along with his wife, of engaging in an elaborate scheme to avoid paying federal income taxes for a decade. Ed Brown has said he will defend himself against capture if necessary; U.S. marshals said they have no plan of escalating the situation.

Given the will and the resources Mr. Brown has it is hard to conceive that this incident will resolve itself quickly or quietly.

Ed Brown heard of the verdict in the middle of an interview with a radio station. “The verdict is in. I can guarantee you all hell’s going to break loose,” he told WNTK-FM in New London.

He later said, “It’s all bogus charges. None of these charges are lawful.”

Ed Brown stayed in his wooded, 110-acre home this week. The large, cement-walled house features a watchtower that offers 360-degree views of the rural setting. He said the home is capable of generating enough electricity to operate if cut off from the main grid…

Brown and about 25 supporters said they will defend themselves against capture if necessary. Bernie Bastian, a supporter who said he was carrying two guns, said they would stand with their friend.

Of course, all of this is only conceivable in a state like New Hampshire–which has a far greater libertarian bent than any other in the nation. His motive for evading his taxes was political. Mr. Brown, an exterminator, believed that he has a right to his money and that the Feds are not entitled to take it from him for the sake of supporting a big and intrusive government.

“Most Americans would cower and cringe and raise their hands and surrender like a good little slave,” he said this week.

“I won’t. Under no circumstances. I do not tolerate cowardliness, oppression, bulliness, and I certainly don’t tolerate a federal agency that has absolutely zero jurisdiction in my state, never mind in my county, in my town.”

Whether or not Ed Brown is a lunatic vigilante or a man dedicated to righteous values or both does not seem to be the initial thought to mind. The point is that this story would normally seem so bizarre, but because it took place in New Hampshire it just makes sense. And in all you cant help but feel a glimmer of excitement for a man who stands up for his freedom against big brother (not to mention the fact that it’s pretty badass).

Finally, in quoting General John Stark and the state motto of New Hampshire, Mr. Brown declared, “Live free or die. What else can I say?”

Popularity: 24% [?]

Given the outcome of the midterm elections and the passage of a minimum wage bill in the House of Representatives it is more than likely that a national increase in the minimum wage will come into effect in the near future. Six states voted in favor of minimum wage increases—Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, and Ohio—with four of the six states affirming the proposals with at least 65% of the vote. Now that Democrats have control of both houses and the vast majority of Republicans have and will continue to capitulate on issues of economic freedom, such a measure will probably be approved by the Senate. 

A veto from the President is unlikely. In a press conference the day after Election Day, Mr. Bush described the issue as “an area where I believe we can [find] common ground.” Now that the President has let his guard down, and the House and Senate are without any obstacles, it should be smooth sailing for any proposed minimum wage amendment (never mind its details). 

But, Mr. Bush is mistaken. This is not an issue for which there can be any compromise. A minimum wage is an irrational economic policy. It is not conceived by economic science but rather is product of the childish, emotional impulse of most collectivists and was simultaneously accepted by those who masquerade as “fiscal conservatives.” Not only must any minimum wage increase be struck down, but any remnants of a “minimum” or “living” wage must be eliminated; the only proper policy for Congress to take on the minimum wage is to abolish it. 

The underlying intention of the minimum wage is to improve the incomes of the poorest workers. The failure of this logic is first that it assumes that businesses will continue to hire workers even at a price above their worth. Labor is like any other economic good or service; its price is determined by supply and demand, and its value is tied to its productivity. In a free market economy a capitalist pays a worker $5/hour because that is the maximum cost he is willing to pay, given the productivity of the labor. He has already implied the fact that he will not pay $10/hour for that labor—it is not nearly worth that price.  

If government were to mandate that no used car be sold below $15,000 would that ensure the prosperity of all used car salesmen? Of course not. If the car they are selling is not worth that price people will simply not buy it. When posed with the choice of buying a car worth $15,000 and a car worth $10,000–but priced at $15,000–the buyer will not pay that extra 50% for the overpriced car. In that case the cars worth less than $15,000 will simply not be sold.  The same idea applies to labor. If the minimum wage is set to $10/hour those whose labor is worth less will simply remain unemployed. Indeed those who the minimum wage was intended to help are hurt by it the most.

Despite wishful speaking, a decree by the government cannot create more wealth; it will not make a man worth more, it will not increase the demand for his labor (it will actually decrease it), the minimum wage simply makes it illegal for a poor man to be employed (at market price). It has and it will continue to curtail employment of those whose market price is below the minimum wage. 

Why else would a minimum wage be advocated by racists and labor unions all over the world and throughout history? Because it forces their competitors out of the market (for racists, minorities; for unions, cheap labor). In the United States, at every single congressional hearing ever held on a minimum wage amendment, an organized labor representative has been present to argue the case for an increase. But why? Virtually all unionized labor makes far more than the minimum wage. Those unions that have pull on Capital Hill would not nearly have their wages affected by a minimum wage hike. The reason these unions petition for such laws is because it eliminates competition from cheaper labor by making it illegal for such cheap labor to exist. 

America’s first minimum wage law (called a “prevailing wage” in the literature of the act) did just that. The Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 was passed in part to stop black construction workers from “taking jobs” of white workers by accepting lower wages. The pet issue of the Congressmen who introduced the bill in the House, Robert Bacon, was preserving America’s “racial homogeneity.” 

So who is right, who would the minimum wage actually effect? It is not the single, middle aged mother of three as most bleeding heart liberals have perpetuated; it is the teenager working a summer job or after school to earn a few bucks (especially young blacks and other minorities). According to the 2003 US Census, of the 7.8 million Americans that earn below $6.65 an hour, 72% of them live in a household whose income is at least 50% above the poverty line. The average household income of those 7.8 million workers was a respectable $40,000.  According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 63% of minimum wage workers receive raises within one year of employment, and only 15% still earn the minimum wage after three years. Furthermore, only 5.3% of minimum wage earners are from households below the poverty line; 40% of minimum wage earners live in households with incomes $60,000 and higher; and, over 82% of minimum wage earners do not have dependents (i.e. children). 

In 1948 (while the minimum wage was negligible due to post-war inflation), the unemployment for black teenagers was 9.4% while it was 10.2% for white teenagers. Today, 16% of white teenagers are unemployed and 32% of blacks (aged 16-17).  Still, the fact of the matter is that even if the minimum wage raises the wages of all lower paid laborers, it would still manage to hurt everyone in the economy. The conceptual error of many proposing a minimum wage is that they mistake what signifies economic prosperity. The truth is that higher wages do not mean higher purchasing power. Purchasing power requires that there be something to purchase in the first place—the requirement for increasing purchasing power is greater productivity. But by increasing the costs of production (in this case, wages) government will curtail production in the present, and by decreasing real profit margins, and thus savings, it will further decrease production in the future.  If the economic well being of people could be improved by simply increasing wages then why stop at raising the minimum wage to $7, why not make it $50, or $100, or $10,000 per hour? That would be great, wouldn’t it?! If the government just kept raising the minimum wage it could make us all millionaires!  But, of course, that’s ridiculous. Yet it’s only the logical conclusion of the idea that a minimum wage will make people richer. No matter what, in economics you cannot escape the fact that wealth cannot be created by force. Government mandates produce nothing; they only consume wealth, destroy savings, and distort the incentive to produce. Production requires that individuals apply their minds to the practical problems of man’s existence in pursuit of their own self-interest and be free to do so. In the end that leaves us with only one issue—the most important issue—the mortality of the minimum wage. Perhaps the most preeminent “collectivist” economist in America is Paul Krugman. He summarizes the ultimate reason to establish a minimum wage: “In short, what the living wage is really about is not living standards, or even economics, but morality. Its advocates are basically opposed to the idea that wages are a market price–determined by supply and demand…The amorality of the market economy is part of its essence, and cannot be legislated away.” However, calling the price system and free market immoral is nothing more than an attempt to live outside of reality. 

The price system exists because of individuals who pursue their self interest and deal with their fellow men as traders of value in order to do so—nothing is more moral than that. Under a price system people do not deal with others as slaves or primitives or sacrificial animals, they deal with them as men, who have a right to their liberty. They do not deal with them by force, but by reason and through voluntary exchange. The fact of the matter is that a true price system exists because of men that have capacity to produce and trade, and are free do so. 

The minimum wage is immoral because it is the opposite of this. It is a blatant violation of liberty. The minimum wage is a perfect case of the government initiating force against individuals. People have the right to enter into any mutual voluntary contract they wish, because it is voluntary. If our government or any other government respects the moral absolute that man has rights and it is immoral for anyone to use force against that man’s life, liberty, or property, then it must abolish the minimum wage.    

Popularity: 15% [?]

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s new plan to universalize health care in the state of California is ominous news, especially for an industry already beleaguered by the most severe restrictions of the government. The horrid state of healthcare and the progression towards state controlled coverage in California is a stark reminder of the novel Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand. First, for those of you who have not read Atlas Shrugged, I recommend that you read it more strongly than any other piece of advice I could give. The book is about an America in which the government is escalating its roll in the economy as well as its infringement upon individual rights. In response to the country’s turn towards statism, the “men of the mind”, the industrialists, stop producing. The following is an excerpt from a doctor explaining why he went on strike in response to the socialization of health care:

Popularity: 22% [?]

America’s founding fathers created a Constitution meant to govern the country for the hundreds of years that would follow. They incorporated contingency plans for many situations; planning for times of war, peace, economic depression, etc. The Bush Administration, however, regards the ages-old document as “just a goddamned scrap of paper.” The Constitution is far more than the administration acknoweldges. Bush’s attitude about the document alone is not the problem; it’s the way he’s acting upon it. The Constitution as written was meant to be interpreted by the courts, not by the president. The Iraq War, however, has provided Mr. Bush with an exemplary opportunity to seize powers for the executive.

In effect, Mr. Bush is planning on racking up an extraordinary bill in Iraq and presenting it to Congress without their prior commitment. Recent events highlight the extent to which Mr. Bush is willing to go to achieve what the President claims is, “a better chance for success” in Iraq. Bush’s speech Wednesday night called for a commitment of 20,000 troops but made no mention of the appropriations to fund Bush’s new plan. After all, Congress is the only governmental agency that posesses the “power of the purse.” Still, Bush forged on, claiming that enough money is in governmental coffers to begin his plan. By the time extra troops are on the ground, “it will be too late for Congress to stop them.”

Apparently Bush wasn’t confident enough in his earlier attempt to garner financing from an unfriendly Congress. In an interview Sunday night with 60 Minutes, Bush noted that he would send troops to Iraq regardless of what Congress’ wishes were. Bush was asked if he had the authority to send troops to Iraq regardless of Congress’ wishes. His reply was an ugly affront to the principles of the Constitution, “I think I’ve got, in this situation I do, yeah. I fully understand they could try to stop me from doing it. But I’ve made my decision. And we’re going forward.”

Congress does have the right to limit funding for Bush’s project. The Center for American Progress mentions several key examples of funding revocations, including personnel ceilings in Vietnam and Lebanon. Can it be done? With an increasingly uncooperative White House, Congress seems not to stand a chance. Unfortunately, the tide of public opinion will sway to the President on this issue. If more troops are indeed sent to Iraq without congressional approval, limiting funding would seem almost patriotic.

Some Congressmen haven’t given up the fight. This week, Ted Kennedy announced legislation demanding accountability for the new Iraq policy. Think Progress obtained key parts of Kennedy’s legislation and a summary from his office.

The legislation claims the people’s right to a full voice in the President’s plan to send more troops into the Iraq civil war. It says that no funds can be spent to send additional troops to Iraq unless Congress approves the President’s proposed escalation of American forces.

Think Progress » Kennedy Introduces Bill Requiring Congressional Approval For Iraq Escalation

Kennedy’s begs an important question: should such limitations of presidential power be necessary to begin with? The Constitution clearly delineated the roles of every branch of government. The Bush Administration seems to have rearranged the tree of government and allowed the executive to obtain an exorbitant amount of power. A New York Times editorial entitled “Picking Up the Pieces” highlights Bush’s problem, claiming “It was surreal how disconnected President Bush was the other night, both from Iraq’s horrifying reality and America’s anguish over this unnecessary, mismanaged and now unwinnable war.” The editorial, however, left out the most crucial disconnect of all: the relationship between Mr. Bush and the Constitution.

Popularity: 30% [?]

I cannot recall another pol at any point in American history that was as over-hyped as Senator Barack Hussein Obama.

Today Obama (along with Senator John McCain) was a guest on Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer; it was evident to anyone watching that he is a lightweight politician unable to comprehend the magnitude of the tasks that would lie before him as the leader of the free world. Schieffer asked Obama four times which way he would vote if the Democrats sponsored a bill to cut funding in Iraq. He evaded the question for twenty minutes. On the other hand, McCain said that if the house voted to cut funding for the war in Iraq, he would not endorse a filibuster by the Republican’s of the majority’s decision. From watching twenty minutes of television, it is apparent that there is a great difference in quality between the two men.

America will have to choose between Obama’s “charisma” and actual politicians. As a conservative, I would rather have Hillary Clinton in the white house than Senator Barack Hussein Obama. At least Hillary Clinton has foreign policy experience, has been in the white house before, and would understand the consequences of failure in the Middle East. How can America be sure that someone with the name Hussein will be willing to do whatever is necessary to protect Israel? America can also trust Mrs. Clinton to back Israel in addition to having the comfort of knowing that she would have Bill at her side.

In a time where the world is moving closer to the third world war, American’s cannot and must not allow their hearts to vote over their minds. We have had eight years of lies and miscalculations fed to us by the Bush administration, American’s must vote for someone who is willing to say the truth and do what is necessary to bring the country together. McCain, Giuliani, and Hillary all have significant experience in foreign policy and in national security, that counts for more than anything. All Barack Hussein Obama seems to have is charisma, in another democratic election many years ago a man was elected because of his charisma, his name was Hitler.

Popularity: 9% [?]

———
‘The jihad now is against the Shias, not the Americans’

As 20,000 more US troops head for Iraq, Ghaith Abdul-Ahad, the only correspondent reporting regularly from behind the country’s sectarian battle lines, reveals how the Sunni insurgency has changed

Saturday January 13, 2007
The Guardian

One morning a few weeks ago I sat in a car talking to Rami, a thick-necked former Republican Guard commando who now procures arms for his fellow Sunni insurgents.
Rami was explaining how the insurgency had changed since the first heady days after the US invasion. “I used to attack the Americans when that was the jihad. Now there is no jihad. Go around and see in Adhamiya [the notorious Sunni insurgent area] - all the commanders are sitting sipping coffee; it’s only the young kids that are fighting now, and they are not fighting Americans any more, they are just killing Shia. There are kids carrying two guns each and they roam the streets looking for their prey. They will kill for anything, for a gun, for a car and all can be dressed up as jihad.”
Read the rest of the article here-

“The Jihad Now.” Guardian.co.uk. Jan 13th, 2007. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1989397,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1. (01/13/07).
————-

This article furthers my prediction that the war in Iraq will continue to intensify between the Shiites and the Sunni’s as American soldiers find themselves caught in the middle. The violence in Iraq may have initially been directed at American forces; now it is evident that it is a war between two sects of one religion. As the tensions in Iraq grow, it will become more obvious to foreign observers, American military leaders, as well as politicians that the Sunni world is moving ever so slowly towards war with the Shiites. Many note that fighting between the two sects has gone on for hundreds of years, but never has so much been at stake. One aspect of the situation that is particularly troublesome is the proliferation of nuclear weapons by states that will be involved in the future conflict, first Iran, and then soon after Saudi Arabia. The threat of a nuclear-armed Iran does not only concern Israel and the United States, but also Shia nations. Once Iran achieves a nuclear weapon, Saudi Arabia will be soon to follow. It is a safe bet that the royal family is investing in nuclear arms research already. Many are worried that any possible strike on Iran will aggravate tensions in the region, while many Muslims will be angry, the governments of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt will be willing to turn a blind eye towards any Israeli action. They will do little than publicly condemn possible air strikes. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan have nothing to fear from Israel. Israel does not represent a real threat to them, as they have no interests in dominating the region. On the other hand the modern Islamic Republic of Iran was founded with the interest of not only destroying Israel, but also becoming the dominant power in the region through political, military, and economic means. Saudi Arabia cannot and never will allow this to happen, they are willing to go to war to prevent it.

Popularity: 19% [?]

If the United States fails to stop the fighting in Iraq, the result will be a regional war between the Sunni and the Shiite states. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and possibly Egypt will fight to keep the Iranians from obtaining nuclear weapons or from exerting a greater sphere of influence over the region. The Saudis do not want majority rule in Iraq—that would mean Shiite control. A Shiite-controlled government will turn Iraq into a satellite state for Iran, which would further spread the Iranian sphere of influence.

If Iraq is not brought under control, a regional middle eastern war will erupt.  At the very least, it would stifle the world wide economy. Att worst, it would spawn the fourth world war. If the Saudi’s and Iranians enter into war the population in Iraq will be caught in the middle, leading to hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of deaths. Israeli security will most certainly be threatened which will force Israel to act against either Iran or Syria. The mutual defense agreement between Iran and Syria will prompt the mobilization of Hezbollah and will propagate an invasion by Israel into Lebanon, which will lead to a bloody street-by-street war. If such an event occurs, the presence of Iranian and Syrian military advisors as well as complex weapons systems will lead to an Israeli response upon targets in Iran and Syria. By now the entire Middle East will be destabilized and oil prices will have skyrocketed.

The international community’s relationship with Russia will also be strained as they continue (official or unofficial) to support of Iran. As oil prices sore in the middle east, much of Europe will come to rely even more heavily on Russia for natural gas and oil supplies which will further increase the Russian monopoly over the energy needs of eastern and even western Europe. The disruptions in the Middle East will mean that both America and Chinese oil supplies will be squeezed and both nations economies will loose momentum. On the other side of the world a maniac, who has aligned himself with Iran, controls the only major oil-producing nation in Latin America.

The more American’s view the world they must see the number of enemies all around them. The Venezuelans, Iranians, Syrians, and even the Russians hope to see the demise of the United States. American’s withdrawing from Iraq will be the spark that ignites the third world war, if the nation is fearful of loosing a few thousand lives to correct the course in Iraq, then they should be horrified of the millions that will be lost because of the consequences of abandoning it.

Popularity: 16% [?]

There have been defining moments in American history. These always occur when the country unites as a whole. Two of these such events seem related. Both occurred at a time when America’s isolationist foreign policy left it alone in the world. During both periods, the economy was in recession and political change was in the air. I am referring to December 7th 1941 and September 11th 2001: Pearl Harbor and the attack on the World Trade Center. Both events claimed nearly 3,000 American lives and both events awakened the nation to the reality of enemies abroad.

Prior to Pearl Harbor, most Americans (with the exception of high ranking diplomatic and military officials) were neither aware of, nor concerned with the growing economic and military threat of Japan. Before September 11th, Americans were too busy trying to save their money from the dot-com bubble to care about a man living in a cave half a world away. With both events, America’s ignorance and isolationism, and maybe even its innocence, was shattered in a matter of hours.

There is one key difference between the declaration of war against America by Japan and the declaration of war by radical Islam. America responded in full force to Japan’s Pearl Harbor surprise, while the response to the deadliest attack ever on America soil was followed with limited action.

You think I am crazy? A limited response, you ask, but what about Afghanistan, and the invasion of Iraq? I say, it was little more than a modern day Doolittle raid, designed to make America feel good, rather than our enemies fear for their lives. Within weeks of Pearl Harbor, over 10 million men and women voluntarily enlisted in the armed forces. Many brave Americans did the same after September 11th, but where was that sense of patriotism in the rest of us?

It was there! America was ready, America was angry. America wanted full retaliation (many wanted it too include more than a few megatons of plutonium), but the government did not ask anything of Americans.

Unused Tomahawk missiles from the Gulf War were sent into Afghanistan, and ill-equipped Northern Alliance fighters took the place of US soldiers. But what if, on September 12th, 2001, President Bush went on national TV and asked Americans to avenge the sacrifice of those we have lost, and to safeguard our liberty and our security? His speech also could have included a plea for Americans to join the armed forces, volunteer at their firehouses , or enter the world of clandestine esrvice. To preserve our freedom we must make sacrifices. The President’s words would motivate millions of Americans countrywide. No such request ever came from the White House.

In World War II, American companies pulled for the war effort. Where was the request of US companies to invest in new technologies to safeguard our borders, ports, and skies? Where was the call for a Manhattan Project to end our reliance on foreign oil? When did the government plead for the smartest, strongest, and best of America to devote their services to a nation at war? The government never asked anything of America.

There was no call to conserve energy, no action to align the media with America. Where was the modern version of the American propaganda that kept the spirits of the Resistance in Europe alive during Nazi occupation?

None of it is there. Instead US soldiers are overburdened in Iraq and Afghanistan, the government cannot supply our troops with the proper equipment, Americans are facing high costs of living, and every day, terrorist propaganda makes its way onto news networks, such as Al-jazeera and the BBC.

Where is our nation’s response to this? Why is it, that when a US soldier shoots an injured Iraqi about to pull a grenade from his pocket, the international media cries foul? Yet if a motor round killed five American soldiers in a mess hall or an Israeli school bus is destroyed, the European and Middle Eastern media could care less! The reason is because America has allowed it to happen! If our government wants to win the War on Terror, then it must take more serious action!

We must end American reliance on the Middle East by exploiting massive oil reserves off the Gulf of Mexico, in Canada, Alaska, South America, and in friendlier parts of the world such as Scandinavia. Utilize the much safer, cleaner, and more efficient resource of natural gas that is available in abundance off the Gulf of Mexico, Canada, Indonesia, Australia, Russia, and even in the friendlier Middle Eastern nation of Qatar.

According to MarketWatch.com, BMW will introduce a production hydrogen powered automobile by 2008. If the Bush administration had asked such a breakthrough of US companies after September 11th, it could have been accomplished several years ago. Corporations such as Exxon have received massive US government tax breaks while the US government should have been encouraging and giving tax breaks and incentives to corporations that invest in utilizing new coal, nuclear, solar, and hydrogen technologies.

After World War Two, the GI Bill was passed to make military service more appealing to American citizens. It took months of legislation to raise the GI death compensation from a despicable $12,000, and the wages of our nations bravest are still pitifully low. American soldiers should be the best paid, best protected, strongest, most mobile, most effective, and most lethal warriors on the planet. The fact that a BlackWater private mercenary in Iraq makes more money and oftentimes has better equipment than a US soldier is a truth that the US government should be ashamed of.

Another cornerstone in the war on terror must be the advancement of pro-American propaganda. Instead of allowing the Qatari0-run Al-jazeera network to promote the killing of Americans, the US government should use economic leverage in purchasing oil and natural gas from the country to ensure that the most watched Arabic satellite TV network becomes much more pro-American. Such an action would benefit the US more than any amount of bombs or soldiers in Baghdad. At the same time, America should undergo operations with US companies to include US propaganda along with US products. Microsoft and Google have been willing to hand over the searches of users in China, many times signing the death warrants of Chinese citizens “googling” democracy and other anti-communist information. If those companies are so keen to help the Chinese government, then they should be just as willing to help America promote a new image all around the world. It is simple: help America defeat fascism, terrorism, and communism, or the IRS may find an accounting irregularity inyour corporation’s annual report.

When America is at war, it is not utilzing every asset it has to succeed. Every US corporation, every member of the US government, every agency, and every citizen should be actively involved in protecting this nation. If the deaths of 3,000 Americans were not enough to alert America to the great threat from the Middle East, then maybe it will wake up when a nuclear bomb decimates New York City. The terrorists hide and fight in the mountainsides of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq, but have taken office in Iran and are related to the royal family of Saudi Arabia. The scary truth is that until every person holding a US passport is committed to containing and destroying our enemies, we will never be safe. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Japanese commander who orchestrated the operation, Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto said, “I’m afraid we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled it with terrible resolve.” The terrorists on September 11th 2001 filled America with that resolve, but Bin Laden laughs every day that our nation fails to utilize it.

Sources- MarketWatch.com, Chicago Tribune, Blackwaterusa.com

Popularity: 21% [?]

Associated Press:

[Congressman Ron] Paul filed papers in Texas to create a presidential exploratory committee that will allow him to raise money. In 1988, Paul was the Libertarian nominee for president and received more than 400,000 votes.
…
Paul limits his view of the role of the federal government to those duties laid out in the Constitution. As a result, he sometimes casts votes at odds with his constituents and other Republicans.
…
He was one of a handful of Republicans to vote in 2002 against giving President Bush the authority to use military force in Iraq, contending that only Congress had the power to declare war. At times, he has voted against funds for the military.
… 

Paul bills himself as “The Taxpayers’ Best Friend,” and is routinely ranked either first or second in the House by the National Taxpayers Union, a national group advocating low taxes and limited government.

This is an excellent prospect for true supporters of the free market. Paul is the only ideologically honest member of congress and the only Washington politician who I would trust with my tax money. Given, his chance of contending for the republican bid is slim, but there is really nothing to lose. And anyway, his joining the race could only give more publicity to his stance and bring forth an alternative to Americans—the alternative to the orgy of government spending and the mixed market-socialist economy we have today: economic freedom.

 If there is any hope of the GOP returning to the principles of limited government, they, at present, lie with this man. 

Popularity: 9% [?]