Ron Paul: You think Hurricane Irene was bad? Wait till you experience FEMA

September 6, 2011

Governor Dan Malloy of Connecticut called presidential candidate Ron Paul an idiot last Thursday. He was answering a loaded question on CNN, responding to Congressman Paul’s concern about a bankrupted FEMA. This government agency, founded in 1978, now doles out money to victims of natural disasters. Of course, Malloy is salivating over that well earned money coming his way. His insult to Congressman Paul must reflect the high anxiety involved. It must be very stressful to have this whole notion questioned, right when you’ve won the lottery.

Privately, Ron Paul staffers tell the story of a constituent who called his office asking for relief from FEMA. It seems they had draped his house with a tarp. They thought it had a leaky roof. It turned out that FEMA had made a mistake. The damaged roof belonged to a neighbor’s house. The constituent had called FEMA, asking for permission to transfer the tarp to the other home. “No way,” an official from FEMA ordered, “If you touch that tarp you will be arrested.”

Huh? Congressman Paul’s constituent was a bit perplexed. Had he lost his house? Was it now the government’s house?

Actually, in his now famous Fox News Sunday interview, Ron Paul expressed compassion for the victims of Hurricane Irene and only then brought up the very real question of how FEMA, now on the verge of bankruptcy, should function. Paul told a tale of corruption. How money is awarded to contractors without bids. Paul suggested that American pull in a little bit from it’s overseas empire and bring some of the money home to help those in need, like the victims of the hurricane. He said the national guard should be home helping in a crisis like this, that this was more of its role than the endless wars overseas. CNN and Malloy missed that.

Here are some numbers to give you a little perspective. Hurricane Irene is the most expensive natural disaster in American history, topping $ 20 billion. Since 2000, America has given that much in military and humanitarian aid to Pakistan. This is the country that harbored Osama Bin Laden. And we are still giving it money.

Meanwhile, we spent $1 trillion on the war in Iraq, where we soon learned that there were no weapons of mass destruction, nor Al Qaeda. That means that the entire bill for Hurricane Irene cost less than 2% of the War in Iraq. And what did we get for the war in Iraq? Well, Al Qaeda which we thought was there, has now finally arrived. I suppose that is worth something. The Christian church, which flourished as a protected minority under Saddam Hussein, has been killed off or driven out. There is now Sharia law and the nation has tilted to Iran. Once its bitterest enemy, Iran is now its new found friend. Way to go gang. Hoorah.

Here is some more perspective. We now know, thanks to a partial audit, that in 2008 alone, the Federal Reserve spent $16 trillion to help shore up the American economy. $3 trillion went to other countries. Billions went to selected corporations. Can you spell corruption? This money, spent in 2008 alone, is more than the entire national debt, which is now topping $14 trillion.

So again, who is the idiot that raised the question about spending money? Isn’t money just little numbers that are transferred electronically? Who cares? We can always make more little digits. Right? Governor Malloy can relax. The rest of the country will continue to obsorb these pay days doled out by elitist politicians and often to their elitist cronies. The wars will be financed, the disaster funds replenished and we will solve the jobs problem by just having the government hire everyone. Let’s see, I would like to be paid $100,000 a year to enforce tarp placement on roofs with suspected leaks. And God help the citizen who touches my tarps.


Wars and Rumors of Wars

July 1, 2011

As you approach July Fourth, stop and consider the presidential race in the Republican Party.

ron,paul,michele,bachmann,mitt,romney,war,world,next ginrich
Recognize him?

All of the 2012 contenders talk big about wars and our continued role in the world except for the only one who has actually served in uniform and is a veteran of our armed forces.

Apparently a little experience goes a long way.

Mitt Romney:
“A second defense mission is to be prepared to fight and win land wars and counter-insurgencies, including the wars we are now fighting . . . Those who shout ‘no more Iraqs’ should remember that we are still in a counter-insurgency war in Afghanistan.”

“It is not hard to imagine future scenarios that would require America to put boots on the ground, particularly given the developments in Pakistan, or even Russia’s apparent designs on its former satellites.” (6/1/2009 — Heritage Foundation)

Michele Bachmann:
“Iran is at a point right now where America has to be very aggressive in our response. We can’t remove any option off the table and we should not remove the nuclear response.” (5/3/2006 Interview on Minnesota Public Radio)

Rick Santorum:
“We’re going to need more of a presence because we’ve created such a vacuum . . . We need basing around the world.” (6/13/2011 — New Hampshire Debate)

Newt Gingrich:
On Libya: “Exercise a no-fly zone this evening . . . All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we’re intervening.” (3/23/2011 — “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren”)

Tim Pawlenty:
“In his speech Tuesday, Pawlenty struck an aggressive tone about the U.S. role in the international community. He suggested that the United States should push for regime change in several countries in the Middle East and North Africa, including Libya and Syria.” (6/29/2011 — Washington Post)

Herman Cain:
“We’re going to be in this war forever.” (1/8/2011 — Slate)

But the only candidate who is actually a veteran and who served in uniform for five years in the U.S. Air Force and the Air National Guard (did you guess it was him in the photo?) says this about American foreign policy:

Ron Paul:
“Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms.”

And since we are approaching July 4, 2011, maybe these words, from another president long ago, are appropriate today.

The less we use our power the greater it will be.
— Thomas Jefferson

Doug Wead is a New York Times best-selling author and presidential historian. He has served as an adviser to two American presidents and now serves as a senior adviser on the Ron Paul presidential campaign.


Ron Paul to Obama: Quit ordering Israel around!

May 20, 2011

In a statement released after the president’s speech, Thursday, May 19, 2011, Congressman Ron Paul took Barack Obama to task. “Unlike this president, I do not believe it is our place to dictate how Israel runs her affairs.”

Ron Paul’s statement, released immediately after the speech, reflected the congressman’s long held views against American leaders meddling in the affairs of other countries. “Israel is our close friend,” the statement reads, “While President Obama’s demand that Israel make hard concessions in her border conflicts may very well be in her long-term interest, only Israel can make that determination on her own, without pressure from the United States or coercion by the United Nations.”

Paul argues that America must stop trying to rule the world and dictate policy to foreign capitals and bring its armies home from its endless wars. Warning that the country is facing annual deficits of $ 2 trillion the congressman’s statement read in part, “Our military’s purpose is to defend our country, not to police the Middle East.”

Ron Paul has been at the forefront of a growing movement of Americans who feel that our national interventionism has gone to extreme and is making us enemies all over the globe. In the 2008 presidential debates, while Mitt Romney and John McCain argued over how long American troops should stay in Iraq, Paul was alone in saying that they shouldn’t have gone into the country in the first place.

It was a shocking statement at the time and both Romney and McCain smirked condescendingly, but today polls show two-thirds of the American people calling for a full withdrawal of American troops from both Iraq and Afghanistan.

“When will our leaders finally do what’s right for America,” Ron Paul’s statement asks, “And rethink this irrational approach we’ve followed for far too long?”

Paul has been critical of American’s foreign aid suggesting that it is conflicted and the money misused. He once described it as money taken from poor people in a rich country and given to rich people in poor countries. Paul has pointed out the absurdity of our policies. “We give $3 billion to Israel and $12 billion to her enemies.”

Obama’s stunning statement, siding with the Palestinian position, calling for Israel to return to its 1967 borders would mean among other things the loss of the Golan Heights and most of Jerusalem.

The statement comes only hours before his Friday meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Many devout Christians and Jews saw the return of Jerusalem to Israel in 1967 as a fulfillment of Bible prophecy. An NBC report from Cairo Thursday night showed little enthusiasm among Middle Easterners for President Obama’s speech.

It remains to be seen how deep the anger will be in America. President Obama’s decision may have come at a heavy political price at home with little gain in the Islamic world.

See: Ron Paul Makes Sense


William and Kate and the 7 greatest weddings in history

April 29, 2011

How does the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton compare to other great weddings and marriages of history?  The answer depends on what happens afterward.  Will William actually ascend to the throne?  What will the monarchy be like in his lifetime?  What will happen in the world and how will he and his queen impact the events of their generation?  All of that will determine whether historians return to the wedding and declare it a moment of history or just another famous event of entertainment for the masses.

Here are seven of the most famous marriages in world history.

1. Mark Antony and Cleopatra.  He was a Roman general who co-ruled the world’s greatest empire as part of a triumvirate.  She ruled Egypt, the greatest empire of the antiquities.   Their marriage was a huge political event that set off endless and deadly conspiracies by rivals.  This romance and strategic alliance towers above all others like it in history.

2. Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine.  This English King and French Queen united two kingdoms which greatly complicated The Hundred Year War.  Not to mention that they produced three more kings of their own.  Henry the young, Richard I, the Lion Hearted, and John Lackland.  (The famous, evil Prince John of Robin Hood lore.)

3. Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn.   He was one of England’s greatest monarchs but his wife, Catherine of Aragon, could not produce a male heir.  Henry fell for her maid of honor, Anne Boleyn, who unlike all of the other maidens of the court, resisted his overtures, driving him mad with, well, with lust.  Henry’s desire to have Anne led to the great break with Rome and the wars between Catholics and Protestants.  Anne, as well, did not give birth to a male heir.  But she did present her husband with a daughter, Elizabeth, who would eventually ascend the throne as England’s greatest Queen.

Like Kate Middleton, Anne was a commoner.  She would be beheaded three years after the wedding.  Hopefully, Kate will do better.  And Henry would famously have six wives but it was this first divorce that would define his kingdom and impact history forever.

4. Shah Jahan and Mumtaz Mahal.  He was the Mughal emperor.  She was his third wife who bore him 14 children.  The last one killed her.  In his grief he built her a magnificent mausoleum in Agra, India.  It is the Taj Mahal and it stands as an eternal testimony to their love.

5. Peter III and Catherine.  He was the Russian heir to the throne, she a sixteen year old, German speaking Prussian bride.  No one would call it a great romance.  Catherine’s father did not even attend the wedding.  But Peter died within six months of ascending the throne and young Catherine wrestled power for herself and built the Russian Empire, ruling for thirty-four years.  History calls her Catherine the Great.

6. Napoleon and Josephine.   He was 26, she was a 32 year old widow.  She could produce no heir for him, nor was she faithful.  But Napoleon’s love sick passion for her, expressed in letters that fell into enemies hands, made their frustrating relationship world famous forever.  Some suggest that Napoleon’s unrequited love inspired his conquests on the battlefield.

7. Albert and Victoria.   He was a German marrying an English Queen but eventually the people began to appreciate his integrity and his steady influence on his bride.  When he died she went into mourning, wearing black for the rest of her life.  But it was the longest reign in English history, the Victorian era, and  the English built their Empire that arguably ruled the world for a hundred years.


America’s Royal Weddings

April 27, 2011

As we all anticipate the coming royal wedding between Prince William and Kate Middleton it might be fun to take a look at our own “royal weddings.”

Of course, there is no such thing as American royalty and when some make such pretensions, we quickly find a way to cut them down to size. Curiously, the same families that some might call our “royalty” others call “cursed.” The Kennedys and the Harrisons come to mind. Both were political dynasties, the Harrisons having multiple presidencies, and both were plagued by untimely deaths.
There have been 21 White House weddings, including nine presidential children and one president, Grover Cleveland. Two other presidents were married outside the White House during their time in office, John Tyler and Woodrow Wilson.

The list of weddings of presidential children is more complex. Several were married outside the White House during their father’s presidency and some of these were spectacular social events.

After the death of her father, when Fanny Hayes was married in Ohio, the sitting president William McKinley was in attendance, as well as his Cabinet. Anna Roosevelt Dall was married at the family estate in New York. In the last years of her father’s presidency, she became a powerful White House aide.

The wedding of Luci Baines Johnson was a national social event, even though it took place at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington. And the small, private wedding of Julie Nixon, shortly after her own father had won the presidency, to Dwight David Eisenhower II, himself the grandson and namesake of a president, prompted widespread public interest and curiosity.

Dorothy Bush, daughter and sister to two presidents, was the only presidential child married at Camp David.

Here is a list of 23 weddings of presidential children married during their father’s presidency. Children married in the White House are underlined:

Maria Hester Monroe, Samuel L. Gouverneur, March 9, 1820
John Adams, II, Mary Catherine Hellen Feb. 25, 1828
Andrew Jackson Jr., Sarah Yorke Nov. 24, 1831
Abraham Van Buren, Angelica Singleton Nov. 27, 1838
Elizabeth Tyler, William Nevison Waller Jan. 31, 1842
Nellie Grant, Algernon Charles Satoris May 21, 1874
Frederick Grant, Ida Marie Honore Oct. 20, 1874
Alice Roosevelt, Rep. Nicholas Longworth Feb. 17, 1906
Jessie Wilson, Frances Bowes Sayre Nov. 25, 1913
Eleanor Wilson, William Gibbs McAdoo May 7, 1914
Anna Roosevelt, John Boettiger Jan. 1935
Elliot Roosevelt, Ruth Googins July 22, 1933
FDR Jr., Ethel duPont June 30, 1937
John Roosevelt, Anne Lindsay Clark June 18, 1938
James Roosevelt, Romelle Schneider April 14, 1941
Elliot Roosevelt, Faye Emerson Dec. 3, 1944
Luci Baines Johnson, Patrick John Nugent Aug. 6, 1966
Lynda Bird Johnson, Charles Spittal Robb Dec. 9, 1967
Tricia Nixon, Edward Ridley Finch Cox June 12, 1971
Maureen Reagan, Dennis Revell April 25, 1981
Patti Davis, Paul Grilley Aug. 14, 1984
Dorothy Walker Bush, Robert Koch June 26, 1992
Jenna Bush, Henry Hager May 10, 2008

A Report From Inside Egypt

February 10, 2011

A Report From Inside Egypt

There seems to be uniformity from many inside Egypt, at least from Cairo.  My information comes from a pharmacist, a doctor, an Egyptologist, shopkeepers and a gentleman who does the internet and bookkeeping for many businesses.  All are saying the same thing, “Mubarak needs to leave now”.

They all feel the violence has been caused by the Security Police attacking the protesters and have said “the army is on the side of the protesters”.

Yes, they all seem concerned about the future of a post Mubarak government  But they say that the Muslim Brotherhood is on the sidelines.  And this from sources who are Islamic, and some Coptic Christian, but almost all of them believe that if there were free elections the Muslim Brotherhood would not come to power.

It is widely believed that the conflict last Thursday, the beatings, killings and attacks on the press came from security police in plain clothes; some of them riding in on horses and camels.  When they were knocked down from their animals, the protesters found security police ID’s.

I am told that there are 24 hour neighborhood watches where everyone is participating to protect each other and that means Egyptians protecting Americans and vice versa.  The shop owners and pharmacist say that the businesses have not been broken into, however they understand the police stations have been burned out.

Most of the Americans in the Cairo area live In Maadi, a wealthier section of town, and I understand they are not ready to leave yet.  We can only pray for a peaceful outcome in the best interest of the Egyptian people and the world.


The Egyptian Crisis: What Would Reagan Do?

February 3, 2011

President Ronald Reagan was not quick to respond to crowds in the street.  He complained, for example, that we probably made a mistake in abandoning the Shah of Iran.

Consider for a moment the morality of this Egyptian Crisis and what the American government is now saying.  We are telling Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, the man who helped bring peace to the Middle East, to leave power, to go.  And why are we saying this?  Well, because he is bad for his people.  There is corruption and poverty.  Well then, why didn’t we tell him to go last year?  Why now?  Because there is a mob in the street and it is likely that they represent a majority?

So if we can turn out a mob in the street against Obama and we can show by public opinion polls that this represents a majority, will Obama leave?  Of course not.  That is not democracy.  Nor is it freedom.  Not in American and not in Egypt either.  It may very well be in our interests as a nation to advocate the removal of Hosni Mubarak but let us not hypocritically claim that this is being done in the name of freedom.

And what is the message to Jordan, perhaps the most responsible and caring of its people of all the governments in the Middle East.  This country has no oil and yet. arguably,  it has done more with less to improve conditions and opportunity for its people, and all within the traditions of Islam, than any other nation in the Middle East.  Well, it is a monarchy.  Not a democracy.  If someone can get a mob going shall we oppose them?

Reagan was an admirer of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who once said, “It is permitted in time of grave danger to walk with the devil until you have crossed the bridge.”  During World War Two we supported Stalin, one of history’s greatest murders, in order to defeat Hitler, one whom we decided, was even worse.

During the Cold War, when the enemy switched from Fascism to Communism, Reagan supported dictatorships under the same premise. Once more, we sometimes “walked with the devil to cross the bridge.”  Reagan saw a manipulative, ingenious communist enemy that  was especially good at using people on the street to push for revolutions which ultimately led to their own enslavement.

We can trace out current dilemma with Egypt and Hosni Mubarak to George W. Bush and the invasion of Iraq.  When it became clear that there were no weapons of mass destruction we redefined the purpose of our attack, we said our invasion was important for bringing democracy to the world.  We were attacking the Iraqi nation to bring “freedom.”  Never mind that in Iraq we would be empowering a Shiite majority who would likely vote to tilt Iraq into the same camp with Iran.  Never mind that Jordan,  Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Islamic states would be diminished.   Never mind that a carefully won balance of power in the Middle East, created over the dead bodies of millions of Iranians and Iraqi youth would be thrown into chaos, if that was what the majority wanted, that is what would be morally right.

The problem is that many believe we are once again at war.  This time we are in a defensive war against Islamic Terrorists.  And once again, the street mob can be used against us, even democracy can be used against us.  Indeed, it is democracy that brought Hezbollah to power in Lebanon and Hamas to power in Gaza.  And the Islamic terrorists are watching the drama in Egypt and they will surely adapt and provoke the same thing again, in other places.

Ronald Reagan was not afraid to recognize danger.  He publicly called the Soviet Union “the evil empire.”  This was roundly criticized as dangerously provocative.  People were in denial.

Obama’s problem is that he has sought to defuse the war with Islamic Fundamentalists by pretending that it does not exist.   The national media has concurred and sees this as a logical approach.  It is quite similar to the role that liberals played in the Cold War, downplaying the communist threat, scoffing at stories of mass murder or corruption, acknowledging only what affirmed the party line.  Hoping that by  being nice to the enemy the problem would go away.

During the Cold War Fidel Castro came to power with the enthusiastic  endorsement of  Americans who had no idea he was a communist.  The media didn’t say until it was too late.  And today national television news stories report on Islamic – Christian wars in Africa, without explaining to viewers who is being killed by whom for what.  It is driving masses to the internet to get the most basic information, for the network journalists simply will not provide it.

Today, we are giving people in the Middle East the right to vote, even knowing that they may use that power to elect Islamic clerics who will take the right away.  Our announced policy of “exporting freedom” is not resonating well.  Most people in the Middle East do not want our version of “freedom” which, to them, equates with “license.”  When we accuse them of degrading their women they point to our massive  pornography industry.   This is freedom?  Who is degrading women?

All of this brings us to the end game in the Middle East.  The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.  If a mob of immigrants in that country, non citizens, take to the streets and demand a new government will we  support the mob?  Remember, in Saudi Arabia the immigrants outnumber the citizens.  If  Saudi Arabia is touched by extremism, if her oil fields are touched, America and Europe will be at risk. So, this is a question that  we must answer now.  And we must be prepared to stand by our answer.

What would Reagan do?  Reagan would not be in denial.  He would recognize that we are in a war with Islamic Terrorists.  And this strategic reality should transcend any sentimental discussions about  forcing American style freedom on an Islamic people who do not want it.  Reagan would be prepared to stand by the House of Saud.  And he would make that commitment clearly and unashamedly.   And he would make it early.  Reagan would focus on winning the war.  On our survivability as a people.  Reagan would put America first and count on her goodness to help the world when the storm and the war had passed over.  Obama would do well to remember Ronald Reagan this day.  We all should.


How FDR got us out of the Great Depression: Lessons for today

January 27, 2011

Conservatives and Liberals still argue about government’s role in ending the Great Depression and many people see the discussion more relevant today than ever before.  Conservatives point to a compelling 2004 study by two UCLA economics professors showing that Roosevelt’s New Deal policies actually prolonged the recovery.  Written four years before the recent crisis the report concludes that “ill conceived stimulus policies” prolonged the Depression.  But the conventional wisdom of history flows with such force that in 2008 George W. Bush dare not risk laissez faire.

The real story of how America came out of the Great Depression, and FDR’s role in the process, may be less about liberal and conservative government policies and more about good business sense than most modern ideologues might suspect.  The real story is about gold.  And FDR’s frugal, exacting, yes even “conservative,” management style.

What unfolding historic records now show is that FDR picked the British clean, that is, he rearmed Britain in her hour of need, giving her the weapons to stand up against Hitler, but only in exchange for “real wealth.”  First it was gold bullion.  At one point, when Britain dallied, claiming difficulty in getting the gold safely transported, a helpful FDR dispatched an American Battleship to Cape Town, South Africa to complete the task.  We not only took Britain’s gold, we took much of the French gold that had been smuggled out before the collapse of France and much of the Czech gold that had been smuggled out before the collapse of Czechoslovakia.

When the gold bullion was gone, we picked up military bases on British soil around the world.  At one point, Churchill offered the American president entire islands but FDR was too shrewd for that.  It would mean caring for the natives, providing food and employment.  No, FDR just took naval bases, thank you.  And when those were all strategically selected, he took intellectual property, such as radar and the beginnings of our atomic research, a story that until now, has been conveniently ignored by history.  To hear our version, it all happened under the bleachers at the University of Chicago.  Any work of British scientists is downplayed.  The full story of the Maud Committee, which operated in Great Britain in 1940, and developed the concepts of uranium enrichment and fission bomb design, is quickly passed over.

To give you an idea of how all of this put America to work and not only primed the pump and brought us out of the Great Depression but launched us into Super Power status, consider a communiqué from British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill to Harry Hopkins, Franklin Roosevelt’s personal envoy.  The time is June, 1941, when Hitler is launching Barbarossa, his invasion of the Soviet Union.  On the 26th Churchill writes that Britain will need seven months, maybe even nine months, of all available American tank production.  Imagine, no show rooms, no salesmen, no newspaper advertising needed.  Everything being manufactured is already sold in advance.  You get a bit of the picture of how American rocketed out of the Great Depression.

Before the war was over workers at General Motors and Ford in Detroit, Michigan, Nash-Kelvinator in Kenosha, Wisconsin, Studebaker in South Bend, Indiana, were all working in shifts around the clock, manufacturing armed vehicles for the USA, Britain and the Soviet Union.  This was not government stimulus.  This was American work, productivity.  We were manufacturing something that others were willing to buy.

Many times FDR’s emissaries would return from visits to Churchill’s weekend retreat, completely convinced that the cupboard’s were empty, that there was nothing left in Britain to pay for more American production, that the British Empire had been stripped clean.  We now had a moral imperative to defend Britain freely, they would say, to save Western Civilization.  But the wily Roosevelt was always dubious.  There had to be something more, natural resources from the colonies, perhaps something more from Canada or elsewhere that can be bartered and sent our way.  Only when Great Britain was absolutely threadbare, and the Commonwealth reasonably raided as well, and FDR’s many envoys and spies assured him that there was nothing left, did he generously announce “Lend Lease,” which meant we would now finally “loan” Britain the money to buy even more from us.  That was 18 months after the beginning of World War Two.

This is not to say that we Americans were not generous.  At the end of the war, under Harry Truman we offered magnificent loans of product and equipment to Great Britain, with minimal interest.  Our Marshall Plan saved France and Germany and the rest of Europe from descending into poverty.  It alone represented a subsidy of $13 billion at a time when our national GDP was $258 billion. But rather this is to show how American production, not American deficit spending, brought us out of the Great Depression.  And how our initial management of that production created the wealth we could later shower upon the world. It was the biggest transfer of wealth in the shortest period of time in modern history.  It dwarfs what the oil cartel has done since the 1970’s.  The British finally paid back their debts to the United States in December, 2006.

Well, you might say, “Why haven’t I heard about all of this before?” And the answer is that only now are historians beginning to catch up with the truth of those years for much of it was buried as “classified” by the Anglo-American governments.  And then, interested parties had their own political reasons for crafting alternative versions.  Churchill, for example, had no desire to go down in history as the man who lost the British Empire.  Indeed as politicians often do, he successfully portrayed himself as the very opposite, the man who tried to hold it together, wrapping himself in the Union Jack and openly mourning the ongoing loss of British colonies.

Keep in mind.  Wealth is basically what people want.  It may be oil to run automobiles, or timber to build houses and schools.  In the middle ages, timber was so scarce in Great Britain that stealing wood was a hanging offense.  Just as stealing a horse was in the American West.  So wealth may be a horse, or timber, iron, oil, diamonds or gold.  And while man can often create his own wealth, such as mixing cooper with iron to create the more malleable bronze for fashioning new weapons or tools, or today building computers or automobiles in a manufacturing plant, much of the wealth of the world is natural, God given, taken from the land and then transformed by man.

The British Empire had virtually ruled the world for a hundred of its three hundred years of existence.  The sun never set on their Empire.  So for years this natural wealth flowed in ships to the British Isles or was traded with neighboring nations for something else and that resource or luxury was then brought home.  It was extracted from the earth by colonial labor, a more politically acceptable form of serfdom.  And all those years those tiny British Isles were defended by the world’s greatest navy.

Now, all of this begs the following questions.  If FDR would not accept paper notes as repayment for American loans to our English speaking brothers, if he demanded gold bullion, iron ore, oil, diamonds, timber, intellectual property, military bases, all at a time when Hitler threatened western civilization, then why would the communist regime in the People’s Republic of China accept anything less?  Why would China subsidize and finance a trillion dollar American war in Iraq and accept printed paper money, diluted in value by inflation, as its repayment?

In 1940-41, Great Britain used her wealth to buy product from the United States, the greatest manufacturer on earth.  And when she had no wealth, we loaned her the money to buy even more and indebt future generations.  Today, the United States has used its wealth to buy product from the People’s Republic of China, the greatest manufacturer on earth.  And now that we have no wealth, she is loaning us the money to buy more.

So what will China now demand in repayment?  Will she demand intellectual property?  Weapon research? Military bases? Natural resources? The British repaid us in 2006, when will we repay China?

America’s economic and political future depends on your view of history.  If you still believe that she emerged from the great depression through government deficit spending and stimulus programs, our future will be bright indeed.  For our spending today in relation to GDP is staggering and is not far off from our spending of 1941-45.  But if you believe that America worked or produced her way out of the Great Depression in exchange for “wealth.”  If you believe that the bulging gold reserves of Fort Knox made us the world’s richest nation, then we may soon find ourselves in the position of Great Britain and Europe at the end of World War Two.  They were then at the mercy of the generosity of the United States.  We will be at the mercy of the People’s Republic of China.


The Mummy returns with a cure for cancer

October 15, 2010

Can cancer be prevented?

There is new evidence today that cancer is a man made disease.  And if so, there is hope that with the right diet and lifestyle we might someday find our way back.  Investigators at the University of Manchester, England have published the results of the first official “historical diagnosis of cancer” and those results are creating a buzz.

It has long been the instincts of historians that cancer was a modern disease.  Casual evidence of ancient Greek and Egyptian records show only minor incidents of cancer while the disease fairly explodes at the coming of the industrial revolution and with a new wrinkle; increased occurrences among children, unheard of in any fossil records.

The medical community has been dubious of so-called “historical diagnosis” but this study comes with mountains of data. Tests were conducted on Egyptian mummies and animal and human remains, including fossils, even into prehistoric times.  Scientists point out that tumors would be even better preserved by the process of mummification than healthy tissue.  None the less, only one of several hundred mummies showed signs of cancer.

The subject has been filled with controversy some suggesting that the media coverage of the information is influenced by millions of dollars in advertising from major drug companies.  Perhaps in anticipation of the reaction, Professor Rosalie David, at Manchester University’s Faculty of Life Sciences, peppered his statement with apologetics.  “We have looked at millennia,” David points out, “not one hundred years.”

Professor Michael Zimmerman, who found the first histological diagnosis of cancer in an Egyptian mummy is not arguing with the findings.  “In an ancient society lacking surgical intervention, evidence of cancer should remain in all cases. The virtual absence of malignancies in mummies must be interpreted as indicating their rarity in antiquity, indicating that cancer causing factors are limited to societies affected by modern industrialization.”

References to cancer like symptoms in ancient Egyptian texts are now viewed as more likely the cause of varicose veins or leprosy.

What is striking is that while cancer is almost nonexistent in ancient Greek and Egyptian societies other diseases of age, Paget’s disease, arteriosclerosis and osteoporosis, are prolific.  This seems to contradict the assertion of many in the medical community who argue that cancer was only rare because people didn’t live long enough for it to develop.

So the mummies are back, alive, talking to us again.  Watch out! And telling us that if we have not yet found a way to cure cancer, we might be able to find ways to prevent it.  They did.


Obama: Right speech, wrong time?

June 16, 2010

The only thing that history will remember about President Barack Obama’s speech to the nation tonight is the date.  Obama has called the oil spill his 9-11.  If so he is offering the nation too little, too late.  The oil spill happened on April 20, 2010.  He finally got around to addressing the nation on June 15, 2010.  Nothing he says or does now can erase that delay.  It is fixed in history.

Remember 9-11?  George Bush was criticized for getting spooked by the Secret Service who had him flying around in the air for hours to stay safe.  Eventually the president awakened from his lethargy, assumed his role of leadership, told the well intentioned Secret Service to stuff it, and flew back to the dangerous White House where he addressed the nation from the Oval Office.  It took hours for him to take charge, not weeks.

On December 7, 1941, when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt addressed the nation the next day.

Although very late, many observers expected President Obama to strike a lofty theme that would transcend the crisis.  He would appeal to the nation to strive for energy independence.  It would be compared to John Kennedy’s call to land a man on the moon in one decade.   Instead Obama seized on the crisis to pass another piece of his favored liberal agenda, his cap and trade plans.  It is seen by many as a repeat of the bait and switch of the Stimulus Package.  Obama had been elected to office, partially to resolve the mortgage crisis.  But his Stimulus Package raided the Treasury for key constituencies and promoted favored liberal programs while not addressing even the easy fixes for thousands of suffering homeowners.

Obama’s speech talked about “windmills, insulated windows for homes, gas efficient cars” and then his voice trailed off as he mumbled some other vague reference to energy technology.   None of the stated programs will solve the energy crisis.  Unfortunately none of them will even make a dent.  And of course, none of them will do a thing for the oil spill in the Gulf.   Now, they are nice pay offs to industries and corporations who have helped finance his campaign.  And his cap and tax will punish those who didn’t.

Obama’s speech is not much different from what he promised in the presidential campaign.  If you are a liberal and you believe in higher taxes and you do not fear the transfer of wealth to the Middle East and you want higher prices for gasoline, at European levels as he once said, then you can applaud his speech.  But you surely cannot applaud his timing.

The President’s strength is his calm, phlegmatic approach to a problem.  It is a contrast to the blustering, decisive but impetuous nature of his predecessor.  But our strengths can sometimes be our weaknesses.  And this issue, this time has demanded decisiveness and leadership.  And it still doesn’t have it.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 294 other followers