Iran to OPEC: Dump the Dollar

In what surely will be spun as further evidence of his bellicosity towards the "civilized" world, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denounced the American dollar as a "worthless piece of paper" during a recent OPEC summit.

As the world's reserve currency--and presently the only currency accepted in the oil trade--the dollar enjoys special favor amongst all nations. America's role as the issuer of dollars is therefore particularly powerful, but only inasmuch as the dollar maintains its purchasing power in the world market. The dollar's steady decline against other currencies has eroded what used to be widespread support for the currency, and has strengthened the argument for another, more stable currency as a replacement.

Discussions about the value of our currency are not likely to crop up in casual conversations in mainstream America. Frankly, it's a boring topic. However, as fuel prices continue to surge to unprecedented levels, it's becoming increasing clear to most people that something has gone awry--and most are not sure how to fix the problem or where to lay the bulk of the blame.

The usual scapegoats are working their way into everyday conversation, with most pundits looking to Washington to find the answer. And Washington is all too happy to use this "crisis" as an opportunity to expand power and influence over the citizenry. Calls for reduced consumption, price controls, energy independence, increased domestic drilling/exploration, etc. have entered the debate, creating the illusion that our politicians have our best interests in mind.

The American citizen's confusion over who or what is causing steep increases in energy prices, coupled with their already itchy trigger finger for war in the Middle East, adds another interesting twist to Iran's proposal to dump the dollar in favor of a stronger currency. With no large-scale army, navy, air force, or coast guard and very few (if any) long-range weapons, Iran is in no position to challenge America's superior military might should America decide to strike Iran's nuclear facilities.

Warfare need not always involve exchanges of bombs and bullets, however. Iran, as well as the other nations comprising OPEC, has the ability to severely cripple the American war machine without ever firing a shot. Should OPEC take Iran's advice and dump the dollar, the potential exists for a prolonged, painful brand of warfare that will affect every American - rampant inflation and an extended downturn in economic activity.

Objectively, it's difficult to argue with Iranian (and OPEC) logic on this issue. After all, America's reckless devaluing of her currency directly affects the prosperity of every other nation that uses the dollar to purchase oil (which is the entire world, as stated above). Iran is a bit of a special case, however. Already under strict UN-levied sanctions with the threat of even tighter restrictions looming, how do you expect the Iranians to react when they are forced to accept the worthless currency of a country who threatens them with military force on a daily basis?

I don't know enough about the Iranian regime to make any comments about them. Certainly, Iran is not paradise, but then again neither is America. The way I see it, America is forcing Iran into a corner, starving their people and inciting further Western hatred in the region. Tightening sanctions and further depriving the Iranian people of needed food, energy, and medical supplies will further destabilize the region and increase the likelihood of hostilities between the two countries. To suggest fomenting conflict has been America's plan all along is far from a stretch, for one need only to look back to Iraq in the 1990's (or Japan prior to WWII) for historical precedent. As long as America or her allies do not fire the first shot, a conflict with Iran--regardless of the weapons used in retaliation--will forever be spun as a defensive conflict.

Same Sex Marriage

This week we have been treated to what some people will label an advancement in civil society; namely, California's Supreme Court lifting the state-wide ban on same-sex marriages. Interviews were conducted, photos were taken (none too risque, of course), and men married men, women married women. Indeed, these past few days have been portrayed as a celebration of the newfound "freedom" within California homosexual communities, with advocates for homosexual rights touting the court's decision as a "victory" for the heretofore suppressed people.

But can freedom be legislated? In other words, can the same state that once suppressed you assuage years of personal anguish with one strike of the gavel?

The way I see it, it is foolish for homosexuals to tout their right to marry as a "victory" over the state. After all, in order to achieve their victory, homosexuals had to go through the same state they "defeated" in order to gain the right to marry! I don't know about you, but that sounds like charades to me. While I hold no ill will towards anyone desiring to marry the person, object, etc. of their choice, I bristle at the notion that the California Supreme Court's decision is a "victory" for anybody but the state. If anything, the California Supreme Court has re-affirmed the role of the state as grand arbiter in what should be a free society.

We obtain freedom by virtue of being human, not from any non-entity such as a court, government mandate, or written document. A common misunderstanding is that we obtain our freedom from our Constitution, but the Founders understood that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights.

For the record, inalienable rights apply to non-Americans, too, which underscores the absurdity of the outrage over Guantanamo Bay detainees demand for the right to petition civilian courts for a writ of Habeas Corpus. That pundits (from the Constitution-loving "conservative" side, no less) continue to make the argument that the "liberal" court is somehow undermining our benevolent Commander in Chief during a time of war only underscores how far the "conservative" mind has regressed.

Such is the same with the same sex marriage advocates. Like the conservative pundit bemoaning the loss of security at the hands of a liberal court, the same sex marriage advocates' celebration of a court's decision to "free" them from oppression completely misunderstands the larger issue at stake: human subservience to an arbitrary body's (government's) decision on whether or not a particular group of people (homosexuals or detainees) merit freedom. Whether the issue is Habeas Corpus or the right to marry, both groups have to go through government to validate their claim. Regardless of the government's decision, the government has already won - both parties have affirmed their vassal position before the issue is considered.

If marriage is a contract between two (or more) parties and their god (assuming the parties have a belief in a higher being), then what right does the government possess that allows it to interfere? The answer is simple: the right granted--implicitly or explicitly--by the parties involved in the contract itself. In other words, the only reason government can involve itself in a private contract between two parties is because the parties involved allowed it to happen.

In a free society, marriage would be based on private property rights. The decision of whether or not two parties can marry would be made by the institution conducting the ceremony, not granted by an arbitrary government bureau. An institution that disapproves of the preferences of the parties seeking marriage would be free to refuse services to those persons. While that means some homosexual marriages would not be allowed at some institutions, it also means that other institutions would be free to perform marriage rights ceremonies for homosexual couples without fear of government interference. The beauty of a free society based on private property rights is that it allows everyone equal opportunity to pursue their own rational self-interest without having to resort to an arbitrary government body for approval beforehand. No government mandate, license, or law has ever come close to ensuring equal rights for everyone without violating the rights of other individuals in the process.

The real winner this week is the government, not homosexuals seeking the right to marry. As long as individuals divorce (bad pun) themselves from their inalienable right to freedom, the government is all-too-happy to fill the void as freedom arbiter. Government-mandated freedom is false freedom, for as the saying goes, "what the government giveth, the government surely can taketh away."

Paul Questions Obama's Principles

The majority of my friends are die-hard supporters of Barack Obama. I have absolutely no problem with Obama supporters; in fact, I much prefer discussing political issues with Democrats vice Republicans. Generally speaking, Democrats will allow you to speak and will actually listen to you...Democrats are much more interested in engaging in philosophical discussions than Republicans (from my experience, anyway).

In contrast, flag-waving Republicans are much more likely to bristle upon being questioned about their beliefs. Ask a flag-waver about any issue - especially anything pertaining to foreign policy - and you're likely to get the "who farted?" face and a deep sigh before the person launches into a lenghty, cliche-laced diatribe about how America is one (liberal-infested) Supreme Court override from allowing Al Qaeda to detonate nukes in every major city from Maine to Hawaii. To the flag-waver, you are never patriotic enough; and only a fool would question the policies of the current administration.

Then again, most flag-wavers are not aware the Supreme Court exists. Their primary concern is the expansion of the Executive Branch. To them, the powers of the Executive cannot be expanded fast enough, and the role of Congress is merely to provide administrative headaches.

But I digress. At the Future of Freedom Foundation, Dr. Paul fielded a question from the audience about what he would say to presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama. Specifically, Dr. Paul was asked to address Obama's (hollow) campaign promise to bring "change" to Washington. What followed was a sparkling critique of Obama's platform.



While it is true that there exists a lot of similarities between Obama supporters and Paul supporters, the philosophical differences between the two candidates could not be any more pronounced. In my view, Obama is a status quo candidate - much like McCain - and it is highly unlikely any major philosophical change will be made in the coming years under an Obama administration. Under Obama, we can expect an even larger welfare/warfare state, wherein the government plays an increasingly influential role in everyone's lives.

That said, I hope Paul supporters continue their excellent work and continue to convert people (especially young people) to Paul's appealing brand of libertarianism.

Ron Paul on Neil Cavuto

Although he officially dropped out of the race yesterday, Congressman Paul still plans to hold an "alternative" convention in Minneapolis in early September at the same time as the Republican National Convention. He chatted with FOX News' Neil Cavuto about his reasons for holding an alternative convention and what that means for the Presidential campaign of John McCain.

Predictably, Cavuto asked the expected questions of Dr. Paul (will he continue his run independently, is he trying to sabotage McCain's bid, etc.) but what stuck out to me in this interview was Dr. Paul's response to how much of his motivation to hold an alternative convention was driven out of anger. What followed is what I believe to be Dr. Paul's finest answer he's given throughout his campaign.

Dr. Paul responded that he's not an angry person, that he deals in philosophy, and that the reason he's holding an alternative convention is because he's determined to change the way people think about government. Whatever fun I've made of the FOX audience in the past aside, I sincerely hope a portion of Dr. Paul's answer resonates with them. As Dr. Paul explains, there's very little difference--philosophically and otherwise--between the major political parties today...thereby adding greater importance to the need to hear alternative viewpoints.

Admiral Mullen: Stop-Loss to Continue

(from the Army Times):

Addressing a group of about 600 soldiers of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division, Admiral Mike Mullen, the highest ranking military officer in the United States, admitted that the military's present draft system - euphemistically referred to as "stop loss" - will continue and possibly expand over the next few years.

Stop loss is an evil, corrupt breach of contract that is legal solely because the party responsible for the breach is the United States government. Presently, the stop loss program affects approximately 11,000 soldiers. The official reason for the policy is to maintain trained soldiers who are ready to deploy in support of the War on Terror.

By any other measure, maintaining an individual against his or her will, and coercing them to serve in a capacity after which their agreed upon length of service has expired, would be considered slavery. Indeed, the word slavery conjures up images of the pre-Civil War era in United States history, but slavery in its simplest terms is defined as "the state of being under control of another person." Therefore, these soldiers, by virture of being pressed into service against their will and with the threat of violence or imprisonment should they resist or desert, are slaves to the United States military.

The usual argument in favor of stop loss stems from necessity for trained, experienced soldiers in a time of war. Although military officials and commanders do not like having to enforce the policy, they express greater concern over having to adjust to life in a war zone without adequately trained personnel.

The obvious response to these concerns is to wonder what kind of management is responsible for the oversight of training and turnover of soldiers who are slated to deploy. If a privately-owned company failed to adequately plan ahead and adjust to fluctuating numbers of employees, that company would quickly go out of business. It goes without saying that because privately-owned businesses do not have the "luxury" of enslavement available to them, the importance of personnel management is much more vital than it is to an organization like the US military who maintains a coercive authority over its "employees."

Some proponents of the program go so far as to eschew the importance of honoring a contract between employer and employee, calling stop loss a necessity in a time of war. Such arguments, while they are certain to generate patriotic fervor amongst the flag-waving (but chickenshit) neoconservatives, ignore the fact that stop-loss is implemented as a preventative measure rather than a reactive one. In other words, the Pentagon enacts stop loss before the country goes to war. According to the LA Times, the Army has twice implemented the stop loss program prior to US involvment in major conflict: just prior to the first Gulf War and again in 2002.

The message sent to soldiers by the government cannot be any more clear - the government considers you her property, and you are a slave to her bidding. The importance of war supercedes any agreement made with the individual soldier, and that soldier is nothing but a cog in the war machine. While military leaders may lament having to maintain soldiers beyond the original terms of the contract, that they have done nothing to protest the program only underscores the faux leadership prospective recruits can expect to encounter should they join the armed forces. That fact, coupled with the knowledge that America now goes to war on a whim, makes me wonder why anyone would want to join today's military.

"A Completely Unprovoked and Cowardly Act"

Today the Pentagon released grainy footage of the US strike on Pakistan Tuesday, repeating the tired line that the strike was undertaken in order to protect our forces in the region.

Two very difference accounts have surfaced regarding the incident on Tuesday. The United States maintains forces came under attack by soldiers who crossed the border into Afghanistan. They also maintain that the Pakistani forces were aware that the forces were under attack and had called in air support to suppress the threat.

In contrast, the Pakistani government says the video fails to tell the whole story. They maintain that Afghani troops were setting up a checkpoint near the border when they came under attack by the Taliban. No mention was made of whether or not the Pakistani government was made aware of incoming air support.

A quick solution to this would be for CNN to disclose where the blast crater exists. If any part of the crater is on the Pakistani side of the border, the Pakistanis have more than a legitimate argument against US aggression. That CNN failed to disclose where the blast zone exists automatically makes me suspect a cover-up is being concocted by both governing agencies.

How is this not an act of war?

Well What'dya Expect?

President Bush ran nearly the entire gamut of personality during his recent stop in Germany.

First, an introspective President Bush said he has no regrets about invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein in 2003. While he lamented his choice of words prior to the invasion, Bush maintained that the invasion has made the world a safer place.

Second, In a rare display of humility, Bush admitted regret over his usage of cliches such as "Bring em' on" and "Wanted: Dead or Alive" during the run up to the war. Bush said that using such phrases did not portray him as a man of peace.

Imagine that. According to Bush, if only he had chosen his words a little more carefully he would be remembered as a man of peace. That whole illegal invasion and subsequent occupation of two sovereign countries thing? Shrug. Reckless expansion of the American surveillance state and simultaneous usurpation of individual freedoms? Whatever. Millions of people have been slaughtered, injured, displaced, and/or emaciated in his ludicrous "War on Terror" and the only regret he has is rooted in semantics?

Third, peaceful Bush replaced the humble, introspective Bush when the topic of Iran was broached. In order to prove he has learned from mistakes, Bush toned down his rhetoric when speaking about the "threat" Iran's nuclear program posed to the "free" world. Using the safe, bi-partisan approved line that "all options are on the table" in forcing Iran to halt its nuclear program, peacemaker Bush stated that the choice between increased isolation and integration into the world economy was Tehran's.

But warmonger Bush won the day. Bush remarked that present sanctions on Iran should be enforced, and allies should work together to strengthen those sanctions of Iran fails to capitulate to the demands of the "free world."

So there you have it. A session with enough range in personality to baffle any government-licensed psychoanalyst. Of course, Bush's saber-rattling has become so familiar to Americans as to call it cliche. Who knows, though - perhaps even Dubya grows tired of his own BS and therefore decided to throw a curveball to the crowd by being coy?