AmericanTusk - Home/Blog

America Rising

Thu, 21 Jan 2010 10:17:56 +0700

EU Is The New US

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:06:52 +0700

by: Per Bylund

Or maybe it is the other way around, it is hard to tell. In any case, it is easy to see what federalism is about in both cases - and what happens when federalism exists side by side with nation-states (as in the EU). Whereas the US federal government is and has been running amok, the EU is running hyper-amok.

One reason for this is the ongoing tug of war between the national parliaments and the powers at the super-national level. I say powers for a reason, because there is an ongoing tug of war within the EU as well, mainly between the elected European Parliament and the national governments' representatives in the Council of Ministers.

One can easily understand that these conflicts are related.

On the one hand, there is the "democratic" view of "the people's voice" being represented by the national parliaments (keep the power "close" to the people) and the European Parliament (elected by the European peoples). On the other, there is the power motive and the aim by those currently in power to increase their influence - through overriding national parliaments as well as the European Parliament. (I don't take sides for either side in this, as both ultimately represent centralization of power on the European continent.)

What is interesting in comparing the US federal government with the European Union is the institutional difference and how that affects the political ruling class. In the US, they are formally restricted by the Constitution (even though it is a failed attempt to limit power) and the federal powers are separated. Furthermore, the federalism of the United States is for a number of states with basically the same culture.

In the European Union, there is no constitution and therefore no formal restriction to how much federalism may grow or in what ways. The only limit is due to the fact that the federal power is over numerous bodies with distinctly different cultures, languages, traditions, and history. This is of course an obstacle to the efficiency of Rule, but it also creates a situation where people are in the hands of their rulers. The reason for this is that rulers have a common goal: more and centralized power. The peoples of Europe have different aims and different views with respect to federal power. France, for instance, seems to aim for a federalized Europe to be able to force their socialist views on everybody and become a power great enough to replace the USA as the world's super power. The UK, on the other hand, is member but would rather not be: the Brits are against the common currency and basically any "harmonization" of policies. Whereas the peoples of France and UK cannot agree on what to do or even in what direction to go, the political elite in both countries aim for the same thing: increased power.

A recent example of how things work in the EU is the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty formerly known as the "Constitution" of the EU. This document specifies that the EU now has the right to relieve the national governments of whatever power the EU "needs" to address whatever problem. This document needed to be confirmed by all member nations, in some of which national law required decision by referendum. The people of Ireland and other countries voted No. So the EU power elite renamed the document to "treaty," bribed the peoples with subsidies and promises and had them go through another referendum. The treaty was accepted.

Currently, the so-called SWIFT debate is the focus of attention. This is originally a request from US authorities to gain access of all European banking data; to the European power elite, this is not a problem - it is an opportunity for increased control. So the non-elected government representatives in the Council of Ministers are all for it, whereas the European Parliament is not as happy about it (since they will, in theory, be held accountable in the general elections).

According to the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament has a right to be heard on issues such as this. The SWIFT decision was made November 30, however, the day before the Lisbon Treaty came into effect. It should be no surprise that those in power are corrupt and that they take whatever chances they have to make the most of their power. But in this case the decision was made before there even was a proposal - there was only a draft of the new treaty (there is an old one that runs through January, so there is really no rush). The official reason for not involving the Parliament is that the draft of the new SWIFT treaty had not been translated to all languages, which is a prerequisite for bringing issues to the Parliament.

The obvious and real reason, of course, is something very different: the Council of Ministers could not afford waiting to let the Parliament have a say in this matter. Now the Spanish chairmanship of the EU has to work through the treaty and decide on exactly what it is to include. The decision, however, has already been made.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. But don't forget that it is equally true that the corrupted seek power. Institutions may slow down the progress of power, but it will not stop the general direction. As long as we have a power elite, they will work tirelessly to gain more power. Always at our expense, of course, since power is a win-lose, winner-takes-it-all kind of game.

Judge Napolitano Explains Why The Gov't Can't Keep Us Safe

Tue, 12 Jan 2010 08:03:32 +0700

I won't lie. I do NOT like Glenn Beck. I think he makes a mockery of the entire Libertarian cause. Judge Napolitano, on the otherhand, is one of the brightest individuals and a true patriot. He is an ardent Libertarian and I hope Fox comes around and gives him his own daily show in their prime-time lineup.

A Republic, Not An Empire: Re-envisioning of American Military Policy

Fri, 08 Jan 2010 07:36:38 +0700

by: Humble Libertarian

Our military and foreign policy are in shambles. We are currently involved in two costly regional wars of uncertain value to America's defense. Both are against regimes that we had formerly supported and empowered, and both were triggered by an intelligence failure that allowed four commercial airliners to be hijacked by 19 terrorists and used as flying bombs to destroy the World Trade Center towers and part of the Pentagon. This was preceded by eight years of severe over-deployment of military forces overseas during the Clinton Administration. And despite a general consensus in America that we need change, the present administration shows no signs of affecting any real change. What we need is a radical re-envisioning of our entire military and foreign policy- and it can't come a moment too soon.

The Proper Role of a Military in a Civil Society

To begin, we have to determine the role and function of a military in a civil society. That role is the defense of its citizens and sovereign territory from foreign aggression. Remember that the purpose of a government is to establish the necessary precondition of human flourishing, which is a peaceful society, that is- a society wherein people live free from aggression. It can be justified in its use of force only to defend, which means only in response to the initiation of force by an aggressor. When government initiates force, it becomes an aggressor itself and does the thing that it exists to prevent, breaching its own purpose and moral sanction. So a military must be used only in its nation's defense.

The National Defense Threats America Faces

Having defined the purpose and role of a military as the defense of its nation's citizens, we must now determine and create an exhaustive list of the threats to a civil society's peaceful existence. These are: 1) Invasion or attack by a foreign military, 2) Internal civil war, 3) Acts of terrorism, and 4) Acts of piracy or other violence on international waters. The justification for having a large, standing army as we have in America today is to counter the threat of the first two possibilities, which are extremely unlikely today.

As Benjamin Friedman of the Cato Institute notes:

[America's] explosion in [defense] spending comes despite a historically benign threat environment. Invasion and civil war, which traditionally justified militaries, are unthinkable here. North Korea and Iran trouble their citizens and neighbors, but with decaying economies, shoddy militaries, and aversion to suicidal behavior, they pose little threat to the United States. Russia and China are incapable of territorial expansion that should worry Americans, unless we put our troops on their frontiers. And unlike us, they are out of the revolution export business. Terrorism is chiefly an intelligence problem arising from a Muslim civil war. Our military has little to do with it.
Disproportionately High Military Spending

It is truly inconceivable at this time in history that any foreign country would invade America, or that the United States would face a second civil war, so why the unprecedented level of military spending?

In the same article, Friedman notes that:

Non-war or base defense spending will be more than $515 billion in fiscal year 2009. Adjusting for inflation, that's 40 percent higher than the defense budget when George W. Bush took office. Add the wars, nuclear weapons research, veterans, and homeland security, and you get about $750 billion. That is more than six times what China spends, 10 times what Russia spends and 70 times what Iran, North Korea and Syria spend combined.
The Threat of Terrorism

In December 1998, nearly three years before the September 11 attacks, Dr. Ivan Eland of the Cato Institute published a foreign policy briefing entitled "Does U.S. Intervention Overseas Breed Terrorism?" The study catalogs numerous empirical examples of the correlation between American military involvement overseas and terrorist attacks on the United States, strongly supporting its thesis as outlined in the paper's executive summary:

According to the Pentagon's Defense Science Board, a strong correlation exists between US involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorist attacks against the United States... The numerous incidents cataloged suggest that the United States could reduce the chances of such devastating--and potentially catastrophic--terrorist attacks by adopting a policy of military restraint overseas.
How To Reform American Foreign and Military Policy

In George Orwell's prophetic dystopian novel, 1984, the government was always at war in order to justify the endless sacrifice of its citizens and their freedoms. Though it was always at war, its war department was named The Ministry of Peace. Is it unfair to draw a parallel to our Department of Defense and its never-ending series of offensive wars and deployments? Imagine a military policy by which our Department of Defense lived up to its name and its proper role rather than bear that name to obscure its real purpose and the true nature of its activities.

The following is a list of proposals that would reform American military policy to best insure its defense from all four threats listed above and minimize monetary waste and unnecessary costs to American taxpayers. This is a blueprint for a slimmed-down, super-efficient, highly-effective American military machine that is modernized and makes sense in a post-9-11, 21st century world:

Make major, across-the-board reductions in military spending and activity. These would include:

The abolition of the Dept. of Homeland Security. Creating another cabinet level department to make national defense simpler and more efficient was a laughable absurdity. Keeping our homeland secure is what the Department of Defense exists to do.

Reduce the budget for the Department of Defense to pre-Bush levels, as well as matching reductions in target recruitment levels and present employment levels of both military and civilian personnel.

Remove all military personnel from foreign territory, including the dismantling and removal of all foreign military bases.

Formally declare neutrality in all armed conflicts (sorry folks, that includes Israel) and proclaim a new era of American peace, harmony, and "liberal intercourse with all nations" as George Washington recommended in his farewell address, taking heed of his admonition to "to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world."

Focus the DOD's competencies to center on counter-terrorism and continue to grow and improve our network of human intelligence. Our DOD should end up looking more like a national version of the NYPD's counter-terrorism unit. We do not need a large, standing army because we do not face the threat of foreign invasion or internal civil war. We should redesign a DOD that is streamlined and equipped to counter the two threats we do face: terrorism and piracy.

Secure our nation's borders and ports of entry! While our nation and the world will benefit most from a policy allowing the free flow of people, goods, capital, and information across our borders, there is no reason why our DOD shouldn't be able to know who and what is passing over our borders and into our country.

Restore freedom and respect for basic human rights by ending the CIA's practice of renditions, repealing the Patriot Act, and abolishing the Selective Service System along with any possibility of ever reinstituting a draft.

Politics Not As Usual

Thu, 07 Jan 2010 09:44:58 +0700

by: Garry Reed

It's an argument as old as the Libertarian Party itself; is the primary purpose of running for office to get elected or to educate people?

When LP candidates concentrate on vote-getting rather than pushing principles they all too often end up sounding like Republicans.

Take this inventory of policy points in a pamphlet passed out by a Texas LP candidate:

Lower Property Taxes
Lower Utility Costs
Lower Crime Rates
Secure Borders
Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Civil Liberties and Privacy

All but the last sound like traditional conservative Republican Party talking points, with that last bullet maybe plopped in as a sop to the "moderates."

Why would any longtime Republican voter read this and decide to vote Libertarian? Especially a fed up classical liberal Republican who has heard it all before and seen government only get bigger.

What is there here to attract a longtime liberal disillusioned with his wasted Obama vote?

And how exactly are "Secure Borders" a libertarian issue? Libertarians believe in a free market not only of goods and services and ideas but a free flowing market of labor. "Secure Borders" sounds like typical big government Republicanism, security at the price of liberty.

One sentiment expressed at the First Annual Government Sucks Day Rally in Hillsboro, Texas, over the past weekend was this: if people aren't going to vote third party anyway, and specifically not for Libertarians, why not just be our own radical selves and just put our principles out there?

Soft selling the real libertarian message just sounds dishonest.

At least Harry Browne took a bold libertarian position when he proposed ditching the income tax and replacing it with nothing. Forget the flat tax and fair tax nonsense – a tax is still a tax!

And Ron Paul wasn't afraid to confront the Fed.

Selling soft soap accomplishes two things: you attract people who won't support you once they get to know you, so you've gained nothing, and you repel people who would eagerly support you if only they knew you, so you've lost everything.

Many non-Party libertarians might get on board with the so-called Party of Principle program if more candidates just quit soft selling soft soaping soft shoe pussyfooting around and just put it out there like this great example from Iowa:

Headline from The Iowa Independent: "Libertarians are in it, but not necessarily to win it."

Scheduled to make their official announcement today, Eric Cooper and Nick Weltha, LP of Iowa candidates for Governor and Lt. Governor, don't even pretend that they have a chance of winning.

“Our goal in this election is to get at least 2 percent of the vote, which would give the Libertarian Party major party status under Iowa law. We also hope to draw enough support away from the major parties to encourage them to poach our issues in order to steal our voters.”

Poach our issues? Steal our voters? Cooper expanded this strategy elsewhere: "Third parties can get everything they want without winning any elections at all. The Populists in the 1890s and the Socialists in the 1910s won almost no elections, and yet most of the major planks of their platforms were eventually implemented."

Now that's what you call Honesty In Politics.

One Last Homage To 2009! You'll Love This!

Wed, 06 Jan 2010 09:43:09 +0700

Try JibJab Sendables® eCards today!

Why Switzerland Has The Lowest Crime Rate In The World

Tue, 05 Jan 2010 09:30:07 +0700

Was Turning Down Stimulus Money Smart After All?

Mon, 04 Jan 2010 09:31:45 +0700

by: Matt Welch

This weekend's Wall Street Journal, in the course of sketching out the fiscal contours of Stimulus II, makes that claim. Excerpt:

Remember how $200 billion in federal stimulus cash was supposed to save the states from fiscal calamity? Well, hold on to your paychecks, because a big story of 2010 will be how all that free money has set the states up for an even bigger mess this year and into the future.

The combined deficits of the states for 2010 and 2011 could hit $260 billion, according to a survey by the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Ten states have a deficit, relative to the size of their expenditures, as bleak as that of near-bankrupt California. The Golden State starts the year another $6 billion in arrears despite a large income and sales tax hike last year. New York is literally down to its last dollar. Revenues are down, to be sure, but in several ways the stimulus has also made things worse.

How's that? Read on:

First, in most state capitals the stimulus enticed state lawmakers to spend on new programs rather than adjusting to lean times. They added health and welfare benefits and child care programs. Now they have to pay for those additions with their own state's money.

A few governors, such as Mitch Daniels of Indiana and Rick Perry of Texas, had the foresight to turn down their share of the $7 billion for unemployment insurance, realizing that once the federal funds run out, benefits would be unpayable. "One of the smartest decisions we made," says Mr. Daniels. Many governors now probably wish they had done the same.

Second, stimulus dollars came with strings attached that are now causing enormous budget headaches. Many environmental grants have matching requirements, so to get a federal dollar, states and cities had to spend a dollar even when they were facing huge deficits. The new construction projects built with federal funds also have federal Davis-Bacon wage requirements that raise state building costs to pay inflated union salaries.

Worst of all, at the behest of the public employee unions, Congress imposed "maintenance of effort" spending requirements on states. These federal laws prohibit state legislatures from cutting spending on 15 programs, from road building to welfare, if the state took even a dollar of stimulus cash for these purposes.

The upshot?

This is the opposite of what the White House and Congress claimed when they said the stimulus funds would prevent economically harmful state tax increases. In 2009, 10 states raised income or sales taxes, and another 15 introduced new fees on everything from beer to cellphone ringers to hunting and fishing. The states pocketed the federal money and raised taxes anyway.

Now, in an election year, Congress wants to pass another $100 billion aid package for ailing states to sustain the mess the first stimulus helped to create.

WORST. DECADE. EVER.

Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:09:29 +0700

America’s Artificial Rift: The Two Party System

Tue, 29 Dec 2009 10:01:14 +0700

by Anthony Gucciardi

On any given day you can find a news story that focuses on the conflict between democrats and republicans, or Group A and Group B. These groups could be anything, but as long as they are toted as being the opposite of each other, they will clash. When one party supports a bill, the other tends to oppose it. This holds true for both sides, creating a never-ceasing battle over political parties, as opposed to policy.

The change in each party’s fundamental policies has been warped into an infinitesimally minute amount of distinction from one another. When one does not agree with the “Republican” stance, they generally lean towards a “Democratic” stance. The guise of the two parties creates a false sense of freedom and liberation from a structured ideal.

The Soviet Union’s single party system was a failure due to it’s inability to withstand a dissident attack. The United States two-party system is simply the post-beta form of the Soviet-style political spectrum, with the guise of liberty upon it’s aging fangs.

Holding Hands

The word paradigm (paradigma), compounded from it’s Greek root word “to show”, accurately describes the dimension between the left and right party. This paradigm requires a vice grip of social ideology held together for stability. A single party’s influence can break, without a backboard to cater towards any dissidence.

Two parties can stand up against one another to create both geometrically and intellectually a more powerful structure that can withstand intense dissidence from each party for one reason: the rebellion of the first party’s ideals are reciprocated by the second.

Real Issues

The war between left and right diminishes the focus on real issues. A frighteningly large number of people will make all their decisions based upon their party leaders. The debate turns into left verses right, instead of what is best for the country. The mainstream media loves to turn everything into a matter of “party wars”, instead of discussing the actual issue at it’s core.

Instead of thinking “left” or “right”, think about it from a human perspective. What will this do to our country? How will it affect me? How will it affect my neighbors?

Thinking for yourself

Imagine for a moment that your car has broken down. You go to a used car dealership and search around for a nice car. There are no price tags on the cars, but the place seems rather professional. You find a car you like, and it looks like it’s in pretty decent condition. You ask about the price, and the salesman says it will cost you $95,000.

In this case, most people would first investigate the true value of the car before purchasing it. While it seems completely logical to find the true value of the car, many do not take this metaphorical step when it comes down to left verses right. Placing blind trust in the leaders of a political party is just like trusting the used car salesman to give you the best price. Find out the truth for yourself, as it’s the only way to truly find out what’s going on.

Media Spins

The mainstream media loves to take legitimate topics and turn them into a battle between political parties. A perfect example is the Healthcare bill. Even though it has ridiculous policy changes, and a eugenics-based provision system, it is still turned into a left verses right issue by the media. Luckily people have begun to see through this false two party system, and are beginning to realize they are being played.

The mainstream media’s deception is wearing off quite rapidly, as the public begins to realize that they are being duped. The public is realizing that regardless of which party the current political figurehead (puppet) is affiliating himself with, he is still the same as the previous leader. It is a vicious cycle that continues to this day. The difference is that now the people are waking up to this cycle, and opposing it.

Ally yourself with humanity, not parties

You do not have time to waste on petty arguments that center around the false “party wars”. Use your time to get real information out, like the implications of the Healthcare bill, or the shocking dangers of vaccinations. True patriotism is to have thoughts that do not derive from the structured and targeting news media, or the most famous political puppet in your region.