America A Greek Tragedy June 17, 2011
Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Uncategorized.Tags: 2011 Budget, Continuing resolutions, Dr. Robert Owens, Greek bail-out, International Monetary Fund
1 comment so far
After years of policies expanding the national government until it employed 1/3 of the workforce and expanding their social welfare net into a hammock for those who chose not to work the International Monetary Fund (IMF) demanded that Greece impose a budget that the unions saw as austere. For weeks riots raged, buildings burned and people died. Greece having cast their freedom into the wind is reaping the whirlwind. By seeking to make everyone equal and to ensure that no one failed they have placed their entire nation in risk of failing.
After massive bailouts from their EU partners and the United States the Greek problem seemed to go away. Now it’s back and our generous President has offered to borrow money from China to bail-out Greece once again. As all the Progressive Internationalists scurry to keep Greece from swirling down the drain we shouldn’t fall for the illusion. Systems like this don’t work no matter how hard people try to keep the house of cards from collapsing.
Our turn is coming soon.
Even though we are the largest single contributor to the IMF they have recently issued a stern rebuke to The United States. This rebuke stated that in order to meet goals previously promised we would have to implement austerity measures that would be tougher than any since records began in 1960. Yet instead of austerity or even fiscal sanity our leaders, the same ones who have led us into not only mortgaging the farm but mortgaging the kids and the grandkids are acting as the cheerleaders and hand-wringers for the ritualistic rise in the debt limit.
In the last round of the serial continuing resolutions, the one that ended in the Republican House surrendering to the White House and passing the bloated 2011 budget we were told there would be massive cuts. This would be truly historic, 38 billion dollars in cuts. This was so substantial it would only leave a record yearly deficit of 1.6 trillion. There was joy in the House as they took a victory lap beating their chests for holding out for the BIG money.
Then we learn the president and his staff of Chicago trained slight-of-hand bean counters had cooked the books, took credit for laying off people who were already laid off and presto-change-o the massive 38 billion was actually 352 million. This is still a massive amount of money but in the rarified air our high flying government budget it doesn’t quite qualify as chump change. This isn’t the change anyone was hoping for when we changed the chumps back in November of 2010.
This breath-taking cut still left the spending for 2011 more than 773 Billion above 2008 levels and thus President Obama was forced to agree to stealth stimulus almost as big as the one in 2009 that put America back to work, at least in Democrat campaign commercials. And while every one of the serial continuing resolutions was reported with great fanfare as cutting the budget according to the Treasury the 2011 budget deficit actually increased by 15.7% in the first six months of fiscal 2011. In other words the more these leaders who are so concerned about cutting the deficit cut the bigger the deficit grows.
All of this looting of the American economy has a tremendously high price. While no one will ever know what didn’t happen because of the government crowding private capital out and soaking up all the time and energy required to make it through their red-tape bureaucratic maze we see the crippling effects every day.
Although the officials in charge of the silly statistics department tell us there is no inflation even though they are printing money 24/7 as fast as the presses can go inflation is actually nearing 10%, which anyone who lives in the real world and has to buy food or gas knows. And our once free economy is now in the hands of a Federal Government that has no limits and a gaggle of mega-banks that for all intents and purposes should be re-classified as government-backed.
Now the drums are beating for the Progressive Federal Government to bail out the Progressives who have destroyed our once great cities. As Detroit begins to revitalize by surrendering entire communities to the gangs and bull-doze abandoned buildings the same thinking that picked America’s pocket to bail-out the crony capitalists is gearing up to prop up the culture of decline on the local level so the local level will deliver the votes in 2012. This is nothing more than vote buying and money laundering on a grand scale.
This gamesmanship has done nothing to reign in the uncontrolled spending of our unlimited Federal Behemoth. Even the politically blind are beginning to see that this profligate spending is unsustainable. Unless we embrace the austerity needed to right our ship of state we will flounder on the shoals of self-indulgence which have been the death-bed of empires since Nimord tried to build a tower. And if we continue to mortgage the lives of those who have not yet been born we will end up losing the deeds to the lives we think we own.
So, no matter what the teleprompter readers tell us at the end of the day the Republican majority in the House will go along with their Progressive pals and raise the debt limit. And no matter what they say about trillions of dollars of cuts, off in the future and over the rainbow, the deficits will continue and the debt will grow.
Come on Charlie Brown kick the football Lucy promised she won’t move it this time.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College. He is the author of the History of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com View the trailer for Dr. Owens’ latest book @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ypkoS0gGn8 © 2011 Robert R. Owens dr.owens@comcast.net Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook.
Positively Negative June 10, 2011
Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Uncategorized.Tags: Alexis de Tocqueville, Dr. Robert Owens, fundamentally transform America, the American Dream
3 comments
The Corporations Once Known as the Mainstream Media constantly trumpets the claim that President Obama was a Professor of Constitutional Law. And when he was campaigning he charged that President Bush was not respecting the Constitution when he fired eight prosecutors saying, “I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution.”
In this long over looked quote from a radio interview a Pre-President Obama laments the negative liberties he sees as a flaw in the Constitution and waxes eloquent in defense of the redistribution of wealth and the positive power of an intrusive welfare state.
“If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.”
Unfortunately for this radical interpretation, liberty is a negative. Personal liberty is always and only possible when and where external control stops. We have the liberty to think as we wish because no one can control or even know our true inner thoughts. We do not have the liberty to steal; society has placed limits on that action which are enforced by external control. The Framers of our Constitution knew this which explains why our foundational document includes restrictions on the power of government not restrictions on individuals. Unless governmental control over the individual was limited there would be no liberty.
This has been common knowledge in our Republic since John Hancock signed his John Hancock and we declared to the world that the United States of America was going to be something different. We were determined to break free of the entangling state control stifling the monarchies of Europe. We would be a new type of nation where individual liberty, opportunity, and free enterprise would unleash the pent-up creativity and ingenuity would make real the genius of a free people. However, over the years many have fallen asleep, lulled into a trance by the prosperity and security this freedom from state control has fostered.
Slowly the knowledge of what gave vent to this prosperity and security has been lost and generations of Americans have been taught by state schools that free enterprise is evil and state paternalism is good. Generations have been bred to see governmental support, direction, and control as necessary and proper. They have ingested the poison of dependence metastasizing the debilitating life on the dole to the point where they see their continued receipt of stolen goods as an entitlement. So many have fallen for the licentious materialistic hedonism masquerading as life in a post-modern America that when asked, “What is the American Dream?” many will reply “To own your own home.” A response and a belief which made the congressionally mandated Fannie/Freddie induced housing bubble possible if not inevitable.
This shows the negative results of the positive reinforcement of materialism over intellectualism. The correct response to the question, “What is the American Dream?” is Individual liberty and opportunity. Once this was common knowledge among an engaged American public who realized that no one fought and died to own a home, people owned homes in America before the revolution. It was freedom that was the object of the Revolution and it is the individual liberty and opportunity that freedom enables that is the American dream. And today in America this individual liberty and opportunity has now become the object of ridicule in schools pushing a green agenda and a socialist future. The demand for a return to individual liberty and opportunity has become the disparaged slogan on signs at Tea Parties.
Our leaders have embraced instead the idea of “Positive Liberty” which is an oxymoron. By this they mean that the state should actively intervene in the lives of people to provide them with all that is necessary for lives lived as the leaders think they should be. What they are really New Speaking of is Socialism disguised as democracy. However, the increase of governmental power over people does not equate to liberty it equates to serfdom and only the progressive newspeak of a post-modern America could call this decrease of freedom an increase of liberty or democracy.
Alexis de Tocqueville said, “Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.”
This positive liberty is the handmaiden of the other new positive that our progressive leaders wish to foist upon us: positive equality. The real equality, the one our ancestors fought and died for is equality of opportunity which is a negative, forcing the government stays out of the way and the people go as far as their investment of time, talent and treasure can take them. In our new progressive world government is supposed to act to create an equality of outcome so that all are equal all the time. This type of collective equality is to be advanced and protected by the all powerful state pushing down some, lifting others until all are equal at all times. This equality of outcome becomes an unlimited reality that is conceived of as the goal of society. Unfettered democracy defined as the participation of all in the political process either as rulers, dispensers or consumers becomes not only the goal but the means and the end in and of itself.
Thus our Constitutional Scholar-in-Chief is leading us step by step away from the individual liberty and opportunity that are the guardians of the American Dream and into a negative representation of our positive values. With another four years this administration will succeed in fundamentally transforming America.
One last quote from Alexis de Tocqueville “The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.”
PS: Don’t take the bribe.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College. He is the author of the History of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com View the trailer for Dr. Owens’ latest book @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ypkoS0gGn8 © 2011 Robert R. Owens dr.owens@comcast.net Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook.
History Doesn’t Repeat It Rhymes June 3, 2011
Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Uncategorized.Tags: Dr. Robert Owens, Samuel Adams, Taxation without representation, Tea Party
1 comment so far
A series of imperial wars fought by the Kings of England culminating in the French and Indian War almost bankrupted England. At the end of the war England was paying to maintain 10,000 troops in the North American colonies as well as fleets to protect America’s maritime trade.
Americans had fought in the war including the first shots fired, under George Washington at Fort Necessity in Ohio. With the people of England already restive under crushing taxes, the English politicians decided they would tax the American colonists to help pay off the massive war debt and to bear the cost of the colonies future defense.
First they tried the Stamp Act requiring the use of approved or stamped government-issued paper for all legal documents such as will, deeds and diplomas. This brought our ancestors out into the streets. They marched in protest. The Governor of New York, where the first shipment of officially stamped paper was to arrive, was burned in effigy. They attacked the home of a British officer who had boasted he would collect the stamp tax by force of arms if necessary. The Americans organized the states to act in unison calling the Stamp Act Congress to coordinate a boycott and to decide upon other measures of resistance to “Taxation without representation.” In the face of this heroic opposition the British Government repealed the Stamp Act.
By this time the level of taxation in England produced riots and political turmoil, so the government once again tried to balance the budget on the backs of the Americans with the Townsend Acts. These Acts included reprisals for the recent resistance to the Stamp Act such as: restraints upon the colonial assemblies, new courts to enforce the laws, troops quartered in private homes, and once again taxes, custom fees, and import duties enforced by the British military.
Once again our ancestors stood against the tyranny of taxation without representation and eventually forced the British to also repeal these offensive measures. Not giving up on the idea of raising the money they needed from the colonies these disconnected leaders, far removed from the people, next passed the Tea Act. This Act was designed to help the English East India Company avoid bankruptcy by giving them a monopoly on the importation of tea into the colonies.
The Company was able to sell at a lower price including the required tax than any tea smuggled in without the tax. The British reasoned the Americans would willingly pay the tax if they were able to pay it and still get tea for a lower price than without it. But they reckoned without the strength of our principles. This was still taxation without representation and our ancestors would have none of it.
When two ships arrived in Boston Harbor filled with the Company’s tea Samuel Adams vowed it would never be unloaded. Adams held a series of public meetings in the Old South Meeting House. Not able to fit in the building, crowds as large as 5,000 filled the surrounding streets. They demanded that the ships leave. When the agents of the Company refused Adams led a group of men, disguised as Mohawk Indians, to Griffin’s Wharf. The vessels were boarded; the Patriots took the cargo of 342 chests, and threw them into the harbor to the encouragement of a cheering crowd on the dock. This “Tea Party” was repeated in other ports throughout America.
Taxation without representation was the burden too evil to bear for our ancestors. They faced tax burdens that never neared 1 or 2 % and we, their descendants, meekly line up to pay many times that to a government which no longer hears us as we petition them in every way we know to stop the over-the-top spending and return to financial reality.
Today many have forgotten that the “TEA” in the modern Tea Party stands for “Taxed Enough Already!” Millions express frustration and the belief that our elected representatives no longer pay any attention to us once they get to Washington. Our newly elected conservative majority joins the insider parade reaffirming the Patriot Act and passing continuing resolution after continuing resolution. Are we about to learn that if History doesn’t exactly repeat itself it sure does rhyme?
To a generation who have watched our beloved nation fall from the greatest creditor to the greatest debtor, from the greatest manufacturer to an open market for Chinese expansion “Taxed Enough Already” and “No Taxation Without Representation” are starting to sound close enough for blank verse.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College. He is the author of the History of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com View the trailer for Dr. Owens’ latest book @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ypkoS0gGn8 © 2011 Robert R. Owens dr.owens@comcast.net Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook.
Where’s the Outrage? May 26, 2011
Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Uncategorized.Tags: Dennis Kucinich, Dr. Robert Owens, Impeach Obama, Libya, Ron Paul, War Powers Act
4 comments
In the best line of a lackluster campaign Bob Dole challenged the voters who were swallowing the liberal line of the Corporations Once Known as the Mainstream Media. At the time they were carrying the water for Bill Clinton in the 1996 election. By that time Mr. Clinton’s Bimbo Eruptions and complete lack of ethics had become common knowledge but the unengaged in fly-over country were lapping up the Clinton mantra “Character Doesn’t Matter” and preparing to not vote in droves.
Today we face a crisis that is more pertinent to the beating heart of American liberty than whether or not the President is or is not a morally challenged serial abuser of women or what “is” means. Today we again face a challenge that was also presented to us by Mr. Clinton twelve years ago when he waged in an unconstitutional wag-the-dog air war against Yugoslavia that even some of his supporters speculated was more about diverting attention from his Oval Office escapades than anything else.
This re-run of Clinton’s war by decree prompts this writer to ask: Who has the right to commit America to war? Who has the right to send our soldiers into harm’s way? Does America go to war by the act of Congress or by the whim of the Executive?
In this matter, which strikes at the heart of the American Experiment no one in Congress, except Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, two polar opposites from the right and the left, had the integrity to ask these questions. The media totally abdicated its watchdog role. This is a matter that should be at the forefront of the consciousness of the American people. We should have risen up and demanded an explanation. But instead, since our Congressional leaders ignored it and the media treated the only two elected officials who did speak out as if they wore aluminum hats, our fellow citizens hit the mental snooze button, and rolled over to watch a reality show so they could ignore reality.
On March 19, 2011 President Obama’s administration declared war on Libya by launching 112 Tomahawk missiles at targets within the country. I say the administration declared war because the United States Congress was not consulted. Congressional leaders weren’t even advised of these acts of war until 90 minutes before the bombs started falling. And this was not really consultation. Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said “I wouldn’t call it consultation as much as laying it out.” He [President Obama]had spent time consulting with the U.N. and the Arab League but he couldn’t be bothered with consulting the United States Congress? Which brings me back to the quote from Bob Dole, “Where’s the outrage?”
The Constitution in Article One Section Eight ever wary of giving the executive too much power gave Congress the exclusive power to declare war. Ever since Harry Truman decided for domestic political reasons to call a war in Korea that cost 54,229 American lives a Police Action our Presidents have followed the guns and butter policies of peace at home and war abroad. However; Johnson, Bush I, and Bush II sought and received Congressional approval before committing America to war in all but name. Only “Where is the Outrage” Clinton presumed to have the power to wage war by Executive Order.
Today we are faced with an out of control administration that believes it can involve America in a war on the whim of the executive instead of the act of Congress. They pointed towards the War Powers Act as a fig leaf to cover their actions. This administration is headed by a lawyer and filled with lawyers, and yet they presumably did not know that the War Powers Act specifically says, “The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.” And it is clear that not one of the three circumstance explicitly named by the Act applied to the situation of our attack upon Libya.
The President has said he doesn’t need Congressional Approval, Corporations Once Known as the Mainstream Media repeats that the President has the authority, and the Justice Department says the president has all the authority he needs for the war in Libya.
However, due to President Obama’s clear circumvention of Congressional approval and his egregious and erroneous appeal to the War Powers Act, I am stating categorically that his attack upon Libya is an abuse of executive power and an unconstitutional action. This is not my opinion alone. Many Americans from constitutional law experts to his own liberal Democrats are beginning to say the same thing, which brings me back to the quote from Bob Dole, “Where’s the outrage?”
If this is a blatant abuse of power and an unconstitutional act leading to war I also say this rises to the level of an impeachable offense. In this I find myself standing for the first time with the most liberal Democrats. And in another departure from tradition I am also in agreement with Vice President Joe Biden when he said, “launching an attack without congressional approval is an impeachable offense.” No matter what the administration says, no matter what the media says, we the people need to hold those who would violate the constitutional limitations of our government to account or they will continue to transgress the limits and do whatever they want.
In another quote that seems as relevant today as it was fifteen years ago Senator Dole asked, ”When do the American people rise up and say, ‘Forget the media in America! We’re going to make up our minds! You’re not going to make up our minds!’ This is about saving our country!”
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College. He is the author of the History of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com View the trailer for Dr. Owens’ latest book @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ypkoS0gGn8 © 2011 Robert R. Owens dr.owens@comcast.net Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook.
The Constitution Failed May 19, 2011
Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Uncategorized.Tags: 10th amendment, 9th Amendment, Dr. Robert Owens, Immigration, Obamacare, Term Limits
3 comments
People often ask me, “How could you write a book entitled The Constitution Failed?” If the Constitution was written to ensure a limited government and if today we have an unlimited central government my question is, “How can anyone contend that the Constitution hasn’t failed?”
We know that for the last 100 years the Progressives have sought progress by changing the Constitution, which was written to establish unbreakable boundaries for government, without recourse to the amendment process. The Framers knew that without these boundaries government would grow into a millstone around the neck of the American people. Instead of a document establishing solid limits the Progressives say it is a living document that can be re-interpreted with each passing year evolving into whatever the current leaders may desire.
Our twin headed Progressive party of power expands and twists the General Welfare, the Commerce, and the Supremacy clauses to sanction any executive, legislative, judicial, or regulatory action they wish to impose whether it’s a welfare state, energy policies, or the mandatory purchase of insurance. However, nothing is more symbolic of the current irrelevance of the Constitution to our leaders than the utter contempt they hold for the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Back during the original debate to ratify the Constitution these two sentinels of limited government were forced upon the proponents of a strong central government by those much maligned patriots the Anti-Federalists. The Constitution never would have been ratified without an assurance that the first order of business for the new government would be the ratification of the Bill of Rights. The capstone of these sacred rights is the 9th and the 10th Amendments which state:
The 9th Amendment, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
The 10th Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
I present the following examples of how our Progressive central government infringes upon the rights of the States and the people:
Term limits:
While in almost every instance that voters have had an opportunity to voice their opinion they have overwhelmingly approved term limits, and the courts have just as consistently overturned the will of the people. Through ballot initiatives and Constitutional amendments to State Constitutions the people have spoken, but instead of the voice of the people we hear the commands of the elites.
The Supreme Court in a classic five-to-four decision in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton (1995) said the states don’t have the authority to limit the terms of their own congressional delegations. They further ruled that unless the Constitution is amended neither the states nor Congress has the power to limit the number of terms members of Congress can serve. Dissenting Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out that the majority ignored the clear meaning of the Tenth Amendment. Since there is no explicit denial of the power to limit terms to the States in the Constitution the 10th Amendment clearly states this power is reserved to the States.
Immigration:
When the Governor and legislators of Arizona attempted to address the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who are pouring over their borders with Mexico each year they first had to admit that the Federal Government was not enforcing their own laws. After the central government ignored their petitions and pleas for help for years the government of Arizona acted to protect their citizens.
Immediately, the Justice Department sued to block the law, contending it violates the U.S. Constitution. The Arizona law was subsequently struck down by the Federal Courts using the Supremacy Clause for their justification. Judge Richard Paez, said, “By imposing mandatory obligations on state and local officers, Arizona interferes with the federal government’s authority to implement its priorities and strategies in law enforcement, turning Arizona officers into state-directed [Homeland Security] agents.” When it reached the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals a three judge panel said, “Congress has given the federal government sole authority to enforce immigration laws, and that Arizona’s law violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution” The Federal Government has abdicated its responsibility to protect Arizona from invasion and in their opinion a law that requires law enforcement officials to enforce the law goes too far.
The intrusive actions of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA):
Legislators in Texas decided to take action to protect their citizens from what many considered to be overly aggressive pat-downs. The reaction of the TSA to Texas attempting to protect their citizens from the molestation the Federal l Agency calls a pat-down is indicative of the attitude our central government has towards any infringement of their absolute power. On their website The TSA Blog the gatekeepers of the air said, “What’s our take on the Texas House of Representatives voting to ban the current TSA pat-down? Well, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article. VI. Clause 2) prevents states from regulating the federal government.” This says it all. As far as our Federal masters are concerned there is no limit to their power.
Obamacare: Mandating action and penalizing inaction:
The Federal Government is attempting to enforce the mandatory purchase provisions of Obamacare alternately as authorized by the Commerce Clause and as a tax, depending on which argument they think a judge will uphold. This massive invasion of personal liberty is currently being challenged by 28 States as being beyond the bounds of the Constitution. Currently two judges have ruled it unconstitutional and three have ruled it constitutional. If this is provision wherein not taking an action is considered either engaging in commerce and thereby subject to regulation or if a non-action is taxable what is left of our precious freedom? What other non-actions will now be under the power of the government. If a government can control our non-actions what does that say about their power over our actions?
By ignoring the unambiguous meaning of the 9th and 10th Amendments and by stretching and twisting the meanings of a few vague clauses the Progressive leaders of our Federal government have interpreted our Constitution to mean anything needed to do anything desired. Once the words lose their meanings, once the sentences can mean anything the Progressives want, what power does the Constitution have to limit government?
Ultimately this is a message of hope because I trust in the ability of the American people to solve any problem they confront. However, we have to admit there is a problem before we can solve it, and if we refuse to admit there is a problem we have no chance of solving it. The problem is our limited government has become unlimited and does whatever it wants. How can I say, “The Constitution Failed”? What I am saying is our system is broken, it is no longer functioning as designed, and we need a re-set button.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College. He is the author of the History of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com View the trailer for Dr. Owens’ latest book @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ypkoS0gGn8 © 2011 Robert R. Owens dr.owens@comcast.net Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook.
It’s Not Over Till It’s Over May 6, 2011
Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Uncategorized.Tags: Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Dr. Robert Owens, Iraq, Osama Bin Laden
add a comment
The Civil War didn’t end at the First Battle of Bull Run or at the Second for that matter. World War I didn’t end at the First Battle of the Marne or at the Second. World War II didn’t end at Midway.
After what we now knowingly call Gulf War I we celebrated with ticker-tape parades and fireworks as if we had defeated Hitler, Tojo, and Stalin all wrapped up in one. Yet a little more than ten years later we had to go back into Iraq to finish the job, and we’re still trying to finish it today. What should have been an incursion into Afghanistan has lingered on for more than a decade. The sad result of our nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan will end with Iraq as Iran’s most powerful ally and the Taliban back in power in Kabul.
One persistent question after politically directed wars is, “How do you win every battle and lose a war?” After sending the brave into Harm’s Way the generalissimos of the home front drag the fighting out by hamstringing the warriors than when war is no longer a vote getter they throw the victory away through peace-at-any-price diplomacy.
I deeply appreciate the heroic scarifies of our troops, and I’m thankful they’ve provided a life of peace and safety for myself and my family. I celebrate the victories just as I mourn the losses in this long war. The death of an enemy leader can have momentous impact upon a war. The death of Attila ended his empire; the death of Hitler would have ended World War II earlier and did end it when it came. But the death of FDR did not end the war or change the strategy, and the death of Osama Bin Laden will not bring the end to this undeclared war.
The history of irregular warfare didn’t begin with Al-Qaeda. It didn’t begin with the Viet Cong. Irregular warfare has existed as long as there has been ill-equipped resistance to far-flung empires. The United States has battled irregular forces at home and in the far corners of the world since the Indian Wars. We fought irregular forces the first time we faced Islamic terrorists on the shores of Tripoli. After we conquered the Philippines from Spain we fought irregulars for years finally winning a war the Spanish never could. We’ve faced irregular forces in Lebanon, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan. In some places we’ve prevailed in others we’ve withdrawn. At times we’ve even used irregular tactics ourselves such as the 3000 volunteers of Merrill’s Marauders who fought behind Japanese lines in Burma during World War II.
A traditional military organization fighting irregular forces is more like trying to herd snakes than nail Jell-o to the wall, it may be hard but it isn’t impossible. However, the initiative is on the side of the irregulars because they can strike here, there, and everywhere while the regular forces must protect important components of the infrastructure. Revolutionaries and other disaffected groups using irregular tactics have instinctively followed the advice of Sun Tzu, “The enemy advances, we retreat; the enemy camps, we harass; the enemy tires, we attack; the enemy retreats, we pursue.” As the regular forces move into an area the irregulars melt into the population. The disruptions in the lives of civilians create recruits for the irregulars. This is the force multiplier of the irregulars. Every action at suppression brings fresh resources to circumvent future actions.
This will be the inevitable result of the death of Osama Bin Laden. The immediate aftermath was wild jubilation on the part of a segment of our population, electioneering on the part of the administration, and a gross overestimation of the military significance. One man does not make a movement and one leader does not encompass the enemy in an irregular war.
This is especially true in the case of Bin Laden and his brain child Al-Qaeda. This organization is post-modern or perhaps pre-modern in style. It doesn’t have a pyramid shaped flow-chart. It doesn’t have a top-down command structure. In many ways it’s more like a pyramid scheme where every franchise spins off new franchises and they spread out subdividing like amoebas into multiple places and shapes. These autonomous groups and rogue individuals are tied together by beliefs and ideology, united by tactics and strategy but each independent, separated and, anonymous. No leader knows all the followers and few followers are connected directly to any leader. These international conspirators are not united by personal contacts or unified by strategic planning; instead they’re forged into an inter-active whole by solidarity of purpose and continuity of world-view. In such a structure the death of any one person no matter how highly placed or inspirational will not have more than a marginal impact.
As omnipresent and as faceless as the internet and as private and personal as family relations the tenuous filaments of the interlocking terror networks will prove more resilient than expected and more tenuous than imagined. One man’s life can make a difference in the world, one man’s death rarely does. Grave yards are filled with indispensable people.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College. He is the author of the History of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com View the trailer for Dr. Owens’ latest book @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ypkoS0gGn8 © 2011 Robert R. Owens dr.owens@comcast.net Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook.
What’s a Widget Worth? April 29, 2011
Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Uncategorized.Tags: Dr. Robert Owens, Federal Reserve, Gasoline prices, inflation, oil prices, QE 2
5 comments
What’s a widget worth? Who determines the price of widgets? Is there an answer to the escalating cost of widgets?
How much is a widget worth if there is only one widget? What about if there are on hundred widgets? Or one million? What if there are trillions upon trillions and they are being produced at the rate of 514 million per day? The obvious answers to these questions aren’t lost on a normal four year old. Observe such a child in the sand box. If there’s only one shovel they’ll kick and scream to keep it. If there are 1,928 billion of them the child probably wouldn’t notice if someone else used a few billion here or a few billion there. Unfortunately the wisdom that’s normal for any four year old doesn’t seem to exist in Washington.
President Obama publicly laments the rise in fuel prices. Of course when the teleprompter isn’t guiding his every word and he doesn’t realize his every public word is public he says that high gas prices really aren’t a problem they’ve just happened too quickly.
Could this precipitous rise in energy prices be tied to the precipitous fall in the value of the dollar? The devaluing of the dollar appears to be a policy that shows no sign of slowing. Even pro-administration sources such as MSNBC say the dollar is approaching record lows as compared to other currencies. There is a real possibility of a credit downgrade due to the inability of Washington to address the ever-growing debt. A leading Hedge fund manager says panic has set in and people are beginning to dump their holdings in dollars.
Could this escalating rise in energy costs be government policy? Mr. Obama’s Energy Secretary Steven Chu believes that Americans should pay for gas at the same rate as Europeans which at the time of his statement was seven to nine dollars a gallon. Consequently to the central planning enthusiasts who’re working to transform America it isn’t the current high prices that are the problem it was our previously lower prices which were an impediment to the accomplishment of their goal. What we must realize is that their goals are not our goals. Looking at our current leaders it appears as if they see their mission as managing the decline of the United States and everything they’ve done since gaining power has furthered the reality of their vision.
Why is the price spiking ever higher? This isn’t a supply problem. In the face of a spiraling price rise the Saudis who usually boost production to stabilize markets have instead cut production because there is currently a worldwide surplus. The main reason for the current spike is that the dollar is worth less every day. And as the debt ceiling approaches the vultures are circling. Articles and commentaries constantly equate a refusal to raise the debt limit with a default. But the two are not synonymous.
While Federal officials cry the sky is falling Senator Pat Toomey (R PA) proposes to protect the “full faith and credit” of the United States by legislatively making interest payments the Federal government’s top priority. In an opinion piece Senator Toomey shows that the necessity of a default is shown to be instead a choice by the reality that “if Congress refuses to raise the debt ceiling, the federal government will still have far more than enough money to fully service our debt. Next year, for instance, about 6.5% of all projected federal government expenditures will go to interest on our debt, and tax revenue is projected to cover about 67% of all government expenditures. With roughly 10 times more income than needed to honor our debt obligations, why would we ever default?”
Yet administration spokesman such as Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner continue to use scare tactics predicting that if the debt ceiling isn’t raised the government will default and our credit will be ruined. In addition, the largest banks using the default straw man are pressuring the perpetually elected to raise the debt ceiling lest they miss a moment at the Federal trough.
All these theatrics about raising the debt limit is reminiscent of the weekly re-runs of the Continuing Resolution Show that we endured earlier this year. The spendthrifts in Washington cannot conceive of their ability to mortgage our great grandchildren’s future to pay for whatever it takes to buy enough votes to stay in power forever. Whenever anything appears on the horizon that threatens to rain on their perpetual parade to penury they begin chanting their mantra spend, spend, spend, elect, elect, elect.
What can we do about this problem which is causing prices to rise? How can we possibly avert the looming insolvency? How can we end this mad rush to fiscal collapse?
Stop the presses! Stop the deficit spending, balance the budget, and pay off the debt. Don’t raise the debt limit and force the Federal government to live within its means. It makes no sense for us to tighten our belts so that our leaders can continue their spending binge.
What’s a Widget worth? Ultimately everything is worth what you can get someone to pay for it. If you’re paying in U. S. dollars the price just went up.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College. He is the author of the History of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com View the trailer for Dr. Owens’ latest book @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ypkoS0gGn8 © 2011 Robert R. Owens dr.owens@comcast.net Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook.
Truth Justice and the American Way April 22, 2011
Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Uncategorized.Tags: deficit spending, Dr. Robert Owens, Justice, National Debt, Progressive agenda
1 comment so far
Who in their wildest dreams ever thought we would see a headline that says, “China Urges U.S. to Protect Creditors”? For those of us who grew up in an America that was the undisputed leader of the free world locked in the Herculean task of containing the godless hordes of the Communist East, an America that was the largest manufacturer, largest creditor, and the economic engine that drove the world’s economy until recently it was unimaginable. We watched as America fought wars around the edges of the creeping red menace. We worked to elect the leaders and pay the taxes that built a 600 ship navy, the best equipped armies in history, and the Space Based Initiative all of which eventually convinced even the Soviets that their centrally-planned monstrosity couldn’t compete as it collapsed of its own weight.
Yes, except for the pages of MAD magazine, Cracked, or Rolling Stone until recently such a headline would have been unimaginable. Today, after 23 years of Progressive leadership it has become the truth. Communist China is warning us to make provisions to pay our creditors in the face of a declining credit rating and an ever growing debt. Have they ever heard of the GM bond holders?
If you’ve ever been to a TEA Party rally or if you grew up in America before it became politically incorrect to love our country you will remember these words, “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” This is our hallowed Pledge of Allegiance. It ends by announcing to the world our dedication to Justice.
In a world still run by kings, empires, and tyrannical despots as America rose to become a capitalist colossus of opportunity, we proclaimed that instead of the whims of the privileged riding rough shod over the rights of man we as a nation believed in an objective justice that wasn’t swayed by birth or purchased by fraud. For more than two hundred years this honorable standard was our goal. It wasn’t always perfectly applied, and it was sometimes cruelly circumvented by prejudice and avarice, but at least it was our goal. The statue of Lady Justice wears a blindfold so that she is not influenced by what can be seen and she holds the scales which weigh the truth.
Martin Luther King called us to be more than we had been and all that we can be when he said, our children “will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” That this call was not for something new but instead a fulfillment of our original design is shown in Dr. King’s plea that America, “live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.’” This was ever the goal: blind justice. This was ever the light which shone from the beacon in the hand of Lady Liberty: freedom to rise above our birth, liberty to rise to the level of our efforts, and justice for all.
Today the Progressives have shackled us to a creed of political correctness which for the first time in our history makes Americans fearful of the penalties for what they say, write, and think. The Progressive ideology of from each according to their abilities to each according to their need, their dedication to the end of American Exceptionalism through globalization, and their worship of the myth of man-made global warming has created a toxic atmosphere where justice has no blindfold and her scales are tipped by the corruption of political power, crony capitalism, and interest groups on steroids.
In the face of these assaults on who we are and what we can do the American people refuse to give up! In the face of the best government money can buy taxing us to penury and spending us to poverty the American people continue to produce, to work, and to hope. In a world where our Progressive leaders have raised stealing from Peter to pay Paul into a national policy the American people have refused to go quietly into that dark night. On the day taxes were due thousands upon thousands of dedicated Americans gathered in city parks, town squares, and fields to proclaim America is still the home of the brave and the land of the free.
This is the American way. We have faced adversity many times. We have stood up to be counted when kings and emperors sought to squash the freedom of man under the weight of their divine right pride. We have shouldered the burden when dictators sought to clamp their totalitarian yoke upon the neck of the world and we will stand before these self-inflated ideologues who seek to smother freedom under a centrally-planned economy and a regimented society. Other countries have shown that when you rob Peter to pay Paul eventually Peter changes his name to Paul and that in the face of a stacked deck they will pretend to work as the government pretends to pay. In America today millions are rising up and saying, we will not have a nation drowning in debt and limited in power! We will not leave a broken dream to our children! We will work tirelessly to preserve truth, justice, and the American way. Keep the faith. Keep the peace. We shall overcome.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College. He is the author of the History of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com View the trailer for Dr. Owens’ latest book @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ypkoS0gGn8 © 2011 Robert R. Owens dr.owens@comcast.net Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook.
Uncle Sam Plays You Pay April 15, 2011
Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Uncategorized.Tags: Continuing resolutions, Debt Ceiling, Dr. Robert Owens, National Debt, Ryan Plan
add a comment
America is careening towards a financial Armageddon. The president proposed a budget for 2012 that projected a deficit of 1.6 Trillion dollars. That is trillion with a “T.” Gone are the innocent days when one of the perpetually re-elected could quip, “A billion here and a billion there and soon we’re talking about real money.” Now billions disappear into the federal sinkhole at the rate of 4.08 billion per day. What does a trillion look like? If you went into business the day Jesus was born, and you lost a million dollars a day, 365 days a year, it would take you until October 2737 to lose a trillion dollars.
According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) the budget deficit just for February 2011 hit $223 billion, which means more debt was added in just that one month than was added in all of 2007. The personal share of the federal debt borne by every tax-paying citizen is now increasing at the rate of $50 per day seven days a week, 364 days a year. That is an increase of $1,500 per month and $18,250 per year per tax payer.
That sounds serious. However, it doesn’t appear as if our elected officials take it seriously at all. The Republicans propelled into the majority by the grassroots activism, high energy and victories of the Tea Party Movement promised to cut 100 billion from the 2011 budget. President Obama submitted that budget which spends 3.7 trillion with a deficit of 1.6 trillion dollars in 2010. It was never passed even though the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. This left the door open for the Republicans to use the continuing resolutions necessary to keep the government operating as vehicles to wring spending cuts from the Democrats. After theatrical bi-weekly dramas these cuts were in the range of ten to twelve billion dollars.
Then finally, with the Democrats imposing an artificial deadline for the passage of a budget that was almost half expended and which they had failed to pass when they had undisputed control, the two parties of power struck what they hailed as a “Historic” compromise. They first told us they slashed thirty eight billion from the budget. The actual number, according to the Congressional Budget Office has since dwindled down and down until today it is estimated to be less than a billion. The Federal Government will still increase the national debt by several trillion dollars this year and our leaders expect us to celebrate their conversion to fiscal sanity. Isn’t the definition of insanity to continue doing the same thing and expect different results? Just because they’re crazy doesn’t mean we have to cheerfully put on an economic straight-jacket and walk voluntarily into a padded cell at the poor house.
Representative Paul Ryan (R. WI) introduced a budget which he says takes on the sacred cows and gores the sacred bulls by cutting six trillion from the projected budgets of the next ten years. The Democrats immediately assaulted this plan as cruel, heartless, and inadequate. The President announces his latest plan which he assures us he meant to introduce all along once someone else had opened the debate. In His plan Mr. Obama plans to cut the projected deficit by stopping waste and abuse in government programs and by taxing the rich.
There are two problems with this approach: if we had all the money politicians have promised to save by stopping waste and abuse we would have a surplus, and the rich don’t have enough money. It has been estimated that if you confiscated every dime every person who makes over one million dollars per year makes it would only generate enough money to run our debt addicted government for less than one year. What would we do for the next year? And the fact of the matter is that the tax increases the President wants are not confined to the rich. They would target everyone with a combined gross income above 250,000. That group includes most small business people. This approach will take money out of the pockets of the greatest creators of jobs: small business people. And it still won’t generate enough money to stop the red ink.
Now the battle looms to raise the debt limit. This is an inside-the-belt-way shell game wherein the parties of power each beat their chests and growl at each other about who is the most responsible before they both vote to increase the limit on their collective credit card. Wouldn’t it be great if we could all just raise the limit on our credit cards indefinitely? And now with the Federal Reserve buying our own debt to finance the repayment maybe we could increase the limits on all our cards so that we can pay our Visa with our MasterCard and our MasterCard with our Discover and our Discover with our Visa. How could that ever go wrong?
The storyline we are supposed to believe now is that in exchange for raising the debt limit there must be meaningful movement towards a balanced budget amendment. That sounds so encouraging. If we just had a balanced budget amendment the problem will be solved. As always there are several spare balanced budget amendments lying around in Congress waiting for enough votes or at least an opportunity to get to the floor for a debate before they are stuffed back in a committee until the next time the shopaholics on the Potomac need to convince the great unwashed in fly-over country that this time they are serious about curbing their over-spending.
Even if they were passed what good would they do? The President and the Democrats have already shown that they think the way to solve the deficit problem is to raise taxes. The Republicans have a plan that appears very dramatic but at the end of a decade still has not ended the deficit spending, which means the debt is still growing.
The International Monetary Fund has looked at these plans and says it appears America is not serious about dealing with its addiction to debt. If we don’t do something soon our creditors are going to stage an intervention, and they will dictate how we must restructure our lives and our nation if we want any more credit. And we are addicted to credit.
A balanced budget amendment merely requires a balanced budget, and budgets can be balanced by increasing taxes instead of decreasing spending. What we need instead is a spending amendment which would limit federal expenditures to a reasonable percentage of the nation’s income. If we can’t stop the spending we will eventually destroy our credit, collapse our economy, and curtail our liberty. In other words, no matter what we the people want Uncle Sam will continue to spend, spend, spend as long as we pay, pay, pay.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College. He is the author of the History of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com View the trailer for Dr. Owens’ latest book @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ypkoS0gGn8 © 2011 Robert R. Owens dr.owens@comcast.net Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook.
Like this article? Want to see it in your local paper? Call the editor and make a request.
Dr. Robert Owens Chronicles the History of the Future 