Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and the Federal Open Market Committee.
The once arcane strategy – “Operation Twist” – is evidently
becoming a trusty financial tool as much as a screwdriver is to a repairman. The Federal Open Market Committee
(FOMC), charged with overseeing the buying and selling of US Treasury
securities, is to meet this week and it looks like another round of Operation
Twist is on the table. The FOMC’s
decision whether to inject more liquidity into US markets, in an attempt to
inoculate them from European debt crisis, or proceed with other more temperate
measures will help influence the financial trajectory of America and with it
the rest of the planet for the remainder of the year and beyond.
Operation Twist, selling short-term treasuries in order to
buy longer term ones in an effort to bring down long-term yields, is one of
many tools available to the Federal Reserve. In general it is more palatable than firing up the printing
presses or plugging fresh zeros into the digital currency supply and then
purchasing billions (or potentially trillions) in assets, which is how quantitative
easing (QE) is employed and what the Wall Street Oligarchy and Gold Bugs hope
occurs. It may, for the time
being, be sufficient for markets to feel the Fed is doing something and therefore Twist 2.0 may be just the ticket.
In previous rounds of QE benefits were double edged, as one
can never fool the markets. There was ‘good’ inflation (high prices for
equities, corporate bonds, remember: will the Dow hit
record high in 2011?) making the rich richer, so to speak, and then there
was the collateral damage – ‘bad’ inflation via surging commodity prices –
making the poor poorer. This is of
course how
the Fed steals for the 1% and the logic, which explains how the Fed
triggered the Arab Spring.
While both QE1 and QE2 became intensely controversial
Operation Twist, aside from the dubious name, looks to become the preferred
method of intervention. Forbes reports on the upcoming FOMC meeting
with regard to the latest limping economic numbers:
“Barclays Capital called Operation Twist ‘the most likely
outcome,’ saying it would give the Fed more time to sort out whether recent
softness in data is mainly ‘payback’ for hiring during a warm winter or a more
prolonged slowdown. ‘If the latter is the case, then more outright asset purchases
that expand the balance sheet (QE3) would become likely,’ Barclays said.”
To be sure, as the frequency of crises increase moves like
Operation Twist allow the financial engineers to manipulate the economy without
having to deal with the underlying causes of addicting entitlements, long term
debt and growing corporate malfeasance (got Zucked lately?) and without
addressing public concern over persistent and reckless intervention. But again, nothing changes, Operation
Twist is a shell game as much as everything else the Fed attempts.
The political calculation here, however, is important. Should Ben “Bubbles” Bernanke go on a
printing spree, say by injecting a cool $500 billion, look for Obama to win in
November. If the Fed doesn’t it
may harm him according to Gary
Dorsch writing for Seeking Alpha:
“Without the artificial life support of QE3, the U.S. stock
market could sink ahead of the upcoming election and torpedo Mr Obama's
chances. On the other hand, a $500 billion printing operation could lift the
Dow Industrial above the May 1st highs, and tilt public opinion in favor of the
president over his Republican challenger.”
This would undoubtedly raise Republican ire like no state
recognized gay marriage or stimulus bill could and would likely fuel a harder
line conservative (sound money anyone?) to take place of a lukewarm Romney in
2016. The Federal Reserve doesn’t
like attention and especially the pesky kind from sound money conservatives
like Ron Paul. Not doing anything
that would help Obama will sap any animosity a resurgent and victorious GOP
harbors for the Fed in November.
The alternative is of
course, Twist 2.0 or perhaps another
series of secret European loans or some derivative thereof. If the Federal Reserve can lay the
economic turmoil entirely on Barack Obama’s doormat, which Republicans will
happily aid, Ben Bernanke and crew are as usual in the clear. Suffice it to say that has always been
the magic of the Federal Reserve – out of sight and out of mind of the
electorate.
China is a poor juggernaut by most standards, albeit with
extraordinary bright spots. China's rise has been steady since the days
of Mao Zedong and if you ask around the developed world most will tell
you they believe it's the top economic power
reflecting a rising public image rather than a reality. Americans, for instance, know
nearly everything is "Made in China," but most could scarcely fathom
the immensity of many of its cities. In 18 years it is predicted that
China will have over 221 cities boasting over 1 million residents.
China
is no doubt standing tall
these days and looking forward to the day when it, by objective
standards, reclaims its historical role as the largest economy in the world.
One of the most ancient cultures on Earth, China is ready to take a
position of leadership once again and if not globally, at the very least,
within the region.
It's "near peer", the United States, currently
enjoying the largest and most advanced economy on Earth with commensurate
hegemony, is no doubt watching these developments with much caution and
anxiety.
This is a layout of just some of the players involved in the
Sino-Russian
containment zone NATO and the U.S. are attempting to
install.
The real containment sphere, as it were, is 4-dimensional
incorporating land, sea, air, space, and the internet.
Eastern Flank, South China Sea
China for one
understands the U.S.’s “Global Force for Good” – as the Navy’s
advertisement heralds - has held dominion over the Pacific since the end
of World War II. The Chinese Navy has also recently recognized the
Obama administration’s focus on the Pacific and away from over a decade
in the Middle East.
The Taiwan Straight crisis of 1996, during the
Clinton administration, provided China with an impetus for investing in
“anti-access, area denial” technologies. China has since been rapidly
developing its own indigenous warfare technologies to ebb American
hegemony in the area and secure what it believes are traditional Chinese
claims on its peripheries believed to be rich in natural resources.
To
that effect China has recently tested a wide range of cutting edge
armaments. The most startling development is referred to as the
“Carrier Killer” – the DF-21D
– designed to arc into the stratosphere and explode onto the deck of a
U.S. carrier. China has also retrofitted and sea trialed a retired
Russian aircraft carrier, debuted its first stealth fighter last August
and overall has increased its military expenditures substantially.
Since
2002 China’s submarine fleet, according to the Rand Corporation, has
increased from eight to 29. In 2006 these submarines became so quiet
that one was able to surface amidst a small fleet of U.S. subs hitherto
undetected, causing quite a stir. In the darkest of suspicions some
have speculated whether the missile seen off the coast of Los Angeles in 2010 was an in-your-face example of this deep threat.
It was recently reported
China announced how it would go to war against the U.S. fleet should it
feel the need to do so. By firing multiple missiles at the same time,
no doubt deploying the Carrier Killer (when it’s ready), China would
prevent U.S. aircraft carriers and their fighter jets from being able to
penetrate Chinese territory.
In response, the U.S. Navy is developing long-range carrier drones in the hopes of eventually providing a fleet of pilotless bombers.
The U.S. military and NASA in a partial realization of that goal just
test flew the Phantom Eye – “a ginormous, hydrogen powered uber-drone”
able to stay in the air for 4 days at an altitude of 65,000 feet. It
is not deployable from an aircraft carrier yet, but you get the picture.
Outside
of direct U.S. confrontation the South China Sea is seeing an arms race
reminiscent of the Cold War. It is clear China’s ravenous appetite for
natural resources is whetting an appetite for military grade
technology. Defense industries’ top arms dealers are hurrying to meat
the demand as the nations of Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia,
Philippines, and Singapore among others were all courted recently in at
an international arms expo:
Eastern Flank, The South Pacific
In the final
analysis of the Eastern flank surrounding China and Russia, it is
important to note that as China’s brown water navy evolves into a long
range blue water force U.S. “mutual defense” treaties with the
Philippines, Japan and Taiwan will overlap. But the U.S. is no longer
the only player in the region, NATO has just gone global and has
expanded into the Pacific, signing a partnership deal with New Zealand.
With
thousands of U.S. Marines now being stationed in Australia, its Navy
looking forward to access at Port Darwin in the north and more Aussie
troop commitments Sec. Gen. Rassmussen’s words weigh heavy on the
region. “Australia and New Zealand may be far away geographically, but
they are very close to us in terms of values and commitment. Together,
we will discuss how we can come even closer together.” As the Pacific
becomes more crowded the opportunity for butting heads grows by leaps
and bounds.
The Indian “Linchpin”
Last weekend Tim Roemer, former ambassador to India, opined in the Washington Post
about the improving ties with the largest democracy on the planet –
India. However, rather than elucidate his audience on the economic
opportunities first he detailed the U.S. tactical relationship just three paragraphs in.
“Security
cooperation has never been better. The United States and India share
unprecedented amounts of highly sensitive intelligence and have started a
homeland security dialogue; the United States has joined in more combined defense exercises with India than with any other ally. Defense sales are at record levels. We also have historic new collaboration on nuclear nonproliferation issues.” (emphasis supplied)
To be sure, this part of the world is swarming with American Special Forces, in fact, they are in five South Asian countries: Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Maldives and
India. The Pentagon says it is “working closely” with India’s elite
units, preparing them for showdowns with Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Pakistan
based militant group blamed for the 2008 Mumbai attacks with ties to the
ubiquitous and ever resilient forever enemy – Al-Qaeda. As NATO
nations withdraw troops Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta welcomes a larger role for India in Afghanistan.
As this article was being finished Leon Panetta literally took the words
right off the title and affirmed everything we suspected. While
virtually all available geography available is covered in the Pacific
Rim the most populous nation with nearly the largest economy outside
China remains at an arm’s distance. It is Panetta’s goal to change that
vowing today to expand defense ties with India in order to safeguard
the “crossroads” of the global economy.
“For this relationship to truly provide security
for this region and for the world, we will need to deepen our defense
and security cooperation. This is why I have come to India,” Mr. Panetta
told an audience
at the Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses. While analysts see
India preferring some prudent breathing room Panetta sees that the
relationship “can and should become more strategic, more practical, and
more collaborative.”
Considering China has claimed, at least for
now, its own strategic keystone in the partnership with Pakistan and the
deep port of Gwadar India might be a little more receptive to U.S.
overtures. According to Brahma Chellaney, professor of strategic studies at the Centre for Policu Research in New Delhi:
"China
is trying to undercut the U.S.'s numerous interests in Pakistan…Gwadar
was the linchpin of [the] 'string of pearls' strategy and the latest
news adds to that. India faces a unique challenge that no other country
does. Its two nuclear armed neighbors are closely aligned and are
stepping up joint military programs. India will have to step up its
deterrent capabilities."
As we have outlined the
first chain islands nearest to China, with few exceptions, are within
the U.S. envelope, however, the subcontinent is essential to full
containment. Panetta said the new U.S. strategy sought to ““expand
[U.S.] military partnerships and [U.S.] presence in the arc extending
from the Western Pacific and East Asia into the Indian Ocean region and
South Asia…Defense cooperation with India is a linchpin in this
strategy.”
It surely is. Expect India to be in the news more and more.
When it comes to the
growth of domestic government it may be arguable that administrations of
either Democrat or Republicans pursue different agendas, albeit usually
revolving around the prevailing social issues of the day. When it
comes to foreign affairs, however, there is a seamless continuity of
agenda aimed at maintaining and growing – American hegemony.
In
foreign affairs at-large this American influence leads an Anglo-European
coalition through its military arm – NATO. It should be clear,
however, that when NATO acts it is invariably at the behest of U.S.
interests as it “contributes between one-fifth and one-quarter of NATO’s
budget. In FY2010 that contribution totaled $117.8 million…But that
factors only direct payments, not deployments of personnel,” reportedCBS News
last year. U.S. equity in NATO has been concentrated even more as
European member nations’ contributions shrank by $45 billion over the
past two years due to fiscal turmoil.
Nevertheless, NATO and its 28 member countries
flexed their collective muscle last month during their summit in
Chicago. NATO announced its first step toward implementation of a ballistic missile shield,
to be deployed in four phases by about 2020, sending clear signals to
those not in the Club – namely China, Russia, Iran and North Korea –
that amid growing security threats NATO is ready to counter any
potential aggressor. According to a statement released by NATO leaders:
"We
have declared an interim ballistic missile defence capability as an
initial step to establish NATO’s missile defence system, which will
protect all NATO European territories, populations and forces against
the increasing threats posed by the proliferation of ballistic
missiles…”
Given the current threat of asymmetrical
warfare from non-state actors it seems as though conventional
confrontations may not be a thing of the past.
This is a layout of just some of the players involved in the
Sino-Russian
containment zone NATO and the U.S. are attempting to
install.
The real containment sphere, as it were, is 4-dimensional
incorporating
land, sea, air, space, and the internet.
Western Flank, Europe
The U.S. and NATO now
have bases and/or military operations in former Soviet spheres of
influence: Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Lithuania, Estonia are
among those little known. Moscow, understandably rejects the idea that
the NATO missile shield in this area is merely for Iran. Russia offered
to operate the missile shield jointly with NATO, but was dismissed by
the alliance revealing the ruse for what it is. NATO’s secretary
general Anders Fogh Rasmussen called Russian “concerns groundless.”
Before NATO leaders met last month Russia threatened to strike the NATO missile shield
should progress continue. Despite the threats, NATO’s deputy secretary
general, Alexander Vershbow, told the conference last month the shield
is "not and will not be directed against Russia" and that Russia's
intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) are "too fast and too
sophisticated" for the planned system to intercept. If this is true,
NATO countries will be even more vulnerable as Russia recently tested a new ICBM, which according to the Russian military improves its ability to overcome current or future missile defense systems.
Western Flank, The Middle East
It
has been the plan since 1991, soon after the fall of the Soviet Union,
to have the U.S. infiltrate – diplomatically or otherwise – its former
client states right up to the Russian motherland. The plan, referred to
more appropriately as a “foreign policy coup,” was revealed by Gen.
Wesley Clark to an audience in California in 2007. He claims Paul
Wolfowitz, then undersecretary of defense, told him that the U.S. has
5-10 years to "clean up those old Soviet client regimes, Syria, Iran,
Iraq, before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us."
In 2001, the timetable was given an extension after the attacks of
9/11. While visiting the Pentagon, a classified strategy was revealed
to Gen. Clark that the U.S. planed to dismantle and replace the
governments of seven nations: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia,
Sudan, and Iran. Other than Iran of course, five of the seven
governments have already been deposed.
Somalia remains in the
throws; corrupt, occupied by a coalition of African armies, fending off
fundamentalist factions and offering little more than 21st century pirates. Lebanon was coaxed into uprising in 2006 through a sophisticated “color revolution”
strategy piloted successfully by the likes of the U.S. government
funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED) – a sort of social CIA.
And
Syria as we have documented in detail is in the midst of a dangerous
foreign backed insurgency focused on delegitimizing the Syrian
government in the eyes of the rest of the world. Should Syria fall,
Russia will lose its only direct ports of access to the Mediterranean –
Tartus and Latakia. As late as 2007 it was revealed
the Russians were to re-establish a permanent naval presence in the
Mediterranean through access to these new ports. Needless to say, this
alarmed many in Washington and Tel Aviv.
A brief by Stratfor.com, a private U.S. intelligence firm, offered this analysis:
“A
Russian naval presence off the Syrian coast could allow Syrian
president Bashar al-Assad's regime to better inoculate itself against a
potential attack by the US or Israel ... The Russians would be offering
an attractive insurance policy."
Recognizing western
efforts to deny Russia this access reveals that the Syrian “civil war”
is really a microcosm – or if its allowed to succeed, a prelude – of
World War III. There are no less than seven countries involved in the
hostilities in one way or the other and because of it Russia has
recently buttressed the Assad government and Russian strategic interests
with new attack helicopters, weapons and advisors. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Pentagon, least to say, have not welcomed the move.
Western Flank, Central Eurasia
The
U.S. and NATO now have bases and/or military operations Uzbekistan,
Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan among other Central Asian states including Georgia
where U.S. forces are training their military. While all these young,
recently emancipated countries, are ostensibly democratic there has been
evidence of rampant corruption, rigged elections and ethnic strife as
can be expected from a region carved up quite arbitrarily.
The
U.S. has nonetheless embraced whatever system these post-Communist
orphans have come up with as long as they didn’t run back to a resurgent
Russian Empire. Afghanistan might also be included as one of these
former Soviet states, but of course only for a brief period as the USSR
was rebuffed and sent packing after its botched invasion during the
1980s.
The U.S. and NATO have been in Afghanistan for over ten
years now. Detractors scratch their heads and wonder why the U.S. would
be sucked into another Vietnam, mired in scandal and setbacks. Some call it a quagmire, however, a sober assessment might conclude we were never intended to leave.
Afghanistan, amidst this vast containment strategy is an ideal
outpost. It sits atop trillions of dollars of mineral reserves, a
crossroads for oil essential oil pipelines and offers a perfect peak
into Russia and China.
Since NATO hasn’t been the best houseguest,
killing hundreds of civilians and military personnel in the most
aggressive drone war to date, Pakistan is no longer willing to serve as a
NATO supply conduit. NATO and the U.S. military will now use a
“reverse transit” through three former Soviet satellites (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan)
to ship military equipment out of Afghanistan bypassing Pakistan
altogether. The move is purportedly six times more expensive. Whether
this is a bonafide exit route or merely a way of creating better
partnerships closer to Russia remains to be seen.
What is clear is
that Pakistan serves a similar role to China as Syria serves Russia –
naval access. While many are talking about Syria few are talking about
the fact the Pentagon admits the U.S. is at war in Pakistan. While the cover story is of course the favored fiction – Al-Qaeda reigns in Pakistan – groups, which are funded by staunch pro U.S. allies Saudi Arabia and UAE, the ultimate goal is denial of access as much as it is in Syria.
The Wall Street Journalreported last year
that the Port of Gwadar, in coastal Balochistan region of Pakistan, is
scheduled to be the latest in China’s “’String of Pearls’ wherein China
has also funded construction or upgrades of ports in Sri Lanka,
Bangladesh and Myanmar,” a stratagem aimed at strengthening economic
ties, securing access to crucial resources and projecting force into the
Indian Ocean, Arabian Gulf and the African Continent.
As the U.S.
exits (at least publicly) its relationship with Pakistan, China is
taking over. In addition to the Port of Gwadar China sees the
Iran-Pakistan pipeline, the Turkmentistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India
(TAPI) pipeline as vital to its economic health. To this end China has
delivery of 50 JF-17 fighter jets, a unspecified number of 4,400 ton
frigates, submariner training and possibly China’s more advanced FC-20,
also known as the J10, but details are thin. In the final analysis
Balochistan has been and will continue to be the victim (like Syria) of subversion, destabilization and political sabotage,
"a nexus," writes Eric Draitser at Stop Imperialism, "the point at
which diametrically opposing strategic interests converge." These are
the typical tools of the realist school of geopolitics.
Part II will cover the South China Sea, the South Pacific and India, the Asian linchpin.
Rand Paul has been under intense scrutiny, not from usual suspects,
but from his father’s national base of fervent libertarians and
constitutionalists. Since his controversial endorsement of Mitt Romney
last week it has been all-hands-on-deck in the liberty movement. People
are beginning to know a little bit more about Rand and they do not like
what they see – the honeymoon is over.
While some speculate his
endorsement was a way to neutralize opposition from establishment GOP,
laying down goodwill for his anticipated presidential run in 2016,
others wonder whether he may be positioning himself as Lady Liberty’s
double agent. Ruminations aside, antennas are up and ready to analyze
Rand’s next utterance.
This is one of the latest:
The secretive Bilderberg meeting concluded its most recent controversial confab
earlier this month in Chantilly, Virginia. The conference welcomed its
typical shadowy constellation of global elite including many from all
corners of American government: NSA chief General Keith Alexander;
Thomas Donilon, Obama’s National Security Adviser; former U.S. National
Security Adviser Henry Kissinger; failed GOP Presidential hopeful and
former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman; Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.); World Bank
boss Robert Zoellick; Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Co-Chair and
former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and reportedly, among others, one
- Mitt Romney of Massachusetts.
The “reporter” from WGCN Radio
Chicago was unable to confront Sen. Paul about his endorsee’s
participation in Bilderberg, but his “no comment” on whether Kerry (and
by extension his new found political pal) was in violation of the Logan Act
speaks volumes; specifically he didn’t say “no.” This reinforces Sen.
Paul’s purported political gambit – sacrificing for a moment
philosophical purity for the larger more pragmatic prize of the
Presidency down the line.
Sen. Paul is no doubt familiar with his
father’s position on members of the U.S. government meeting behind
closed doors and discussing policy. Rep. Paul has called for
investigations into public officials and their Bilderberg attendance.
On talk radio he questioned Gov. Rick Perry for his participation:
“This
information about him going over there and violating the Logan Act and
getting involved, I’m just impressed that that’s in the ordinary media —
I think that’s encouraging, too...”
While it is clear by now the apple didn’t fall too far from the tree it is also evident that Sen. Paul is not his father and may not be as eager to work outside the system as libertarian ideologues would wish him to be.
The Senator’s political nolo contendre
with regard to the Logan Act thus exposes many things: his misgivings
with the secretive annual meetings, his refusal to abandon a tenuous
political alliance with the political establishment, but most of all his
realism.
If Sen. Paul can keep his cards close, even
from a once adoring alternative media and if he can weather reactionary
Paulistas his options remain aplenty moving forward. To delve into an
obscure and evidently toothless piece of legislation isn’t good politics
and hurts him more than it would bring violators to justice.
To
be sure, the Logan Act has barely seen the inside of a court room and
the only times it has been mentioned is in the congressional record and
referenced within Justice Sutherland’s 1936 Supreme Court opinion
affirming the President as constitutional representative of the U.S.
with regard to foreign nations.
The Logan Act reads, in part, as follows:
“Any
citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without
authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or
carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government
or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures
or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof,
in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”
When Sen. George McGovern was accused of its violation in 1975 the U.S. State Department issued this statement:
“The
clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized
persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and
foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would
appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions
with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under
the Constitution…”
Nowhere in the act does it say
that members of our government can’t meet with other government agents
“in secret” as so many activists assert. Meeting in secret or at least
without record, in and of itself, is not illegal and in fact happens regularly even outside the twenty or so elite summits that occur every year around the world.
It
is interesting to note that Dr. George Logan, from whom the bill
derives its name, was a pacifist who helped quell tensions when the U.S.
and France fought an essentially undeclared war at sea
– the Quasi War – at the end of the 1700s. When Logan returned
successful partisan Federalists were unhappy he received undue adulation
from the media and sought through law to “curb the temerity and
impudence” of such individuals.
The question arises then: when are we
to apply and not apply the Logan Act? Are we to merely call for its
enforcement when it offends our egalitarian and conspicuous
sensibilities? That wasn’t its intent. The Logan Act has been used in
the past to threaten those who want to continue dialogue when our
government has ended diplomacy. Think Jesse Jackson and his Cuban
negotiations, Sen. McGovern and Stokely Carmichael in protest to Vietnam.
There
is as much an opportunity for enemies of peace to use this act (if it
ever saw the light of day) against those who would choose to open a back
channel and avert open war, say with Iran, Syria, China, North Korea,
Pakistan, or Russia as it is for those to use it against the world’s
enigmatic power brokers seeking to influence our elected
representatives. Something lobbyists do on a daily basis.
But,
how many undeclared wars do we currently fight? If Rand Paul, or Ron
Paul for that matter, were prosecuted under the Logan Act attempting to
quell one of these many dubious interventions – undeclared wars – we now
find ourselves apart, the irony would be overwhelming.
What
activists and concerned citizens should continue to do is scrutinize and
expose where the rubber meets the road, where ideas are put into action
– political reform, legislation, executive orders, court decisions,
administrative rules and regulations, etc.
While every decision
our leaders make should be thoroughly investigated, vetted and debated,
for now Rand Paul should be allotted some breathing room. He has set
himself on the path for the presidency and while many wish he’d just
take off where Ron left off, the princeling may not be – his thing.
Rand has yet, as far as his voting record is concerned, to fall to the
dark side, until then we should reserve judgment.
Attorney General Eric Holder, testifying before the House
Committee on the Judiciary, Thursday suffered a grilling at the hands
of Representatives Daryll Issa (R-CA), Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) and Lamar
Smith (R-TX).
Before the hearing it was more than obvious that
Holder, if not Assistant Attorney General Jason Weinstein, knew about
the controversial gun-walking operation known as “Fast and Furious”
prior to its involvement in the murder of U.S. Border Agent Brian A.
Terry on Dec. 14th 2010. If it wasn’t, it was made blatantly
clear after Rep. Issa stacked document after document referring to the
operation, all provided by law enforcement whistleblowers and dated
months prior to Terry’s death.
In a less than impressive display of lawyerly maneuvering Holder claimed the document’s “emails using the words ‘Fast and Furious’ don’t refer to Operation Fast and Furious.” This has been merely the latest in a long line of stonewalling and misdirection on the part of Holder.
Part of a broader series of programs known as “Project Gunrunner” ran
by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)
between 2006 and 2011, spanning two administrations, Operation Fast and
Furious was the largest of other known analogs like “Wide Receiver” and
“White Gun.” ATF in a brazen example of state-sanctioned law breaking
knowingly allowed and “encouraged”
the sale of over 2000 firearms to arms traffickers working through
middlemen known as “straw purchasers” on behalf of Mexican drug cartels.
Since
2006 the Mexican drug war can be described as nothing short of narco
genocide claiming more than 60,000 lives leaving a trail of tears filled
with endless stories of torture, bizarre gladiator kamikazes and
beheadings. The tactics used by the ATF have been claimed to be an
effort to stem the violence by tracking these weapons up the chain
resulting in the apprehension of kingpins and ultimately the dismantling
of the cartels - the mantra of all law enforcement agencies since the
War on Drugs began decades ago.
There are, as you would expect, a
few problems with this line of reasoning. One, the ATF has yet to be
produce a mechanism by which these weapons are tracked outside of
retaining the serial number and hoping they show up. Two, once a
cartel is apprehended (lets say every last one of them) another cartel
will simply take its place, history has shown that much is a certain.
Three, and this is the kicker, why do agents of the government feel they
can break the law in the service of it?
Pruning Will Only Cause it to Grow
The Fast and Furious scandal is merely an extension of the ongoing War on Drugs and just the tip of the iceberg
when it comes to big government shadow war. From the CIA to the ATF
every sort of deep and dubious tactic imaginable (black rendition sites,
entrapments, compromised informants, etc.) is utilized to bring
“evildoers” to justice regardless of the rule of law.
While some, however, have speculated it was Eric Holder and the Department of Justice’s primary intent to sabotage the 2nd Amendment,
this line of reasoning doesn’t quite satisfy the rebuttal. Project
Gunrunner, after all, began under George W. Bush, hardly a liberal
(well, depending on who you ask). Now, this isn’t to deny those of a
liberal bent and the DOJ wouldn’t high five each other if the 2nd
Amendment were undermined in the process. What is constant from 2006
to 2011, however, is our DOJ’s disrespect for law. That much we can
prove. But as I mentioned its systemic, it does not begin nor does it
end with Eric Holder.
While it is necessary to rout the
unscrupulous where and when they rear their ugly heads it is obvious to
those of an objective inclination that conservatives are salivating over
the opportunity to burn Holder
as well. Holder’s allegations are most likely correct, that the
passion of these hearings is most definitely politically motivated, but
who cares? The real issue at hand is the slight of hand.
Buried are the stories of the FBI allowing drugs
to cross the border. The press surrounding Holder and gunrunning saps
the attention, which could be used to expose the DEA’s purported
get-out-of-jail-free card offered to Vicente Zambada-Niebla, son of
Sinaloa Cartel leader Ismail “El Mayo” Zambada Garcia. At the very
least the government admitted his lawyer was a confidential informant.
While some may write this off as the necessary evils of the drug war, are we to then accept our government’s “moral ambiguity” as a fact of life? From Insight Crime:
"[T]hey
hint at a deeper truth in the U.S.'s handling of the Mexican drug
panorama. The border zone is filled with double agents, and often U.S.
officials have to take part in morally ambiguous operations. This
includes relying on informants who may continue to traffic drugs and
kill people, but will still expect protection in return for their
information.”
This is a cycle without end and corrupts both governments. Rather than readdressing and reforming drug laws throughout the Americas
as many south of the U.S. border have offered to do, the United States
government feeds the perpetual mission creep inherent within an
ill-conceived tapestry of law enforcement agencies. Hammering Eric
Holder is merely pruning the branches of corruption.
Sen. Rand Paul’s endorsement of Mitt Romney as Republican candidate
for President has formed a crack in the Paulista universe. The vast
majority of Ron Paul supporters, save an actual poll, are clearly
rejecting the move as a sign that after all of their hard work,
donations and success Rand has abandoned his base and sold out to the
political establishment. Just take a look at his Facebook page, yikes.
One example of the outrage: “NWO has a brand new tool in their toolbox. How could you?”
Ron
Paul by any measurement led the libertarian movement out of the
political wilderness. For decades he remained stalwart in his advocacy
of the Constitution often being a lone voice of reason amidst calls for
war, bank bailouts, undermining civil liberties and growth of national
government. Similarly his son has espoused these beliefs with the same
vigor in his brief time in the Senate and has often been found willing to debate the finer points of libertarian philosophy while it may not often be popular.
The
Pauls have been rock stars of a young, growing and vibrant liberty
movement, which has proven capable of dismantling and remaking
anachronistic state GOP leadership in their own image. The Paulistas,
while rancorous at times and buying wholesale into a very cynical view
of their government, have displayed adept political maneuverability in
securing more delegates than anyone thought possible.
The Ron Paul
Revolution has tapped into a sustainable and vigorous movement while
simultaneously creating a home replete with models of representation for
moderates, disaffected liberals and disgruntled conservatives. Why
then would Rand endorse the personification of establishment politics?
First,
lets make clear that what Rand Paul has not done, which is hurt the
liberty movement. The recent success of Ron Paul has shown the growing
power of this faction of new politics. The Ron Paul Republican
is here to stay and that’s why you won’t see Ron Paul endorse Mitt
Romney. The brand is secure, however, there is some politics left to
play – and this is all about politics.
The Paul strategy is quite clear - graft healthy philosophy onto a dying system.
Rand Paul's ideology might not be identical to his father's, however, the
movement of which he claims to still be apart may act like a life giving
philosophical graft. The GOP is the dead vine blow, the liberty
movement is grafted above.
There is a reason why Rand chose Sean Hannity’s Fox News program to
announce. It is one of the most watched shows on television and the
platform is directed right into the homes of moderates and the full
breadth of the conservative establishment. His intended audience was
the GOP not his base, which looked at objectively is a small, but
growing part Republican politics.
"In
making clear that [Rand Paul] is publicly behind Romney, Rand Paul is
sending a very clear signal: I’m a good soldier for the GOP.
Make
no mistake: The Republican party establishment will never embrace Rand
Paul as one of their own — nor would he want them to. But, it is
possible that Paul playing the role of loyal Republican in the 2012
election could well neutralize some of the fears the party regulars have
about the prospects of him carrying their standard at some point down
the line."
His gamble has initially paid off as self proclaimed “neocon” commentators are already warming to a future Rand Paul run. As Matt Lewis of The Daily Caller crassly put it: “He’s everything you like about Ron Paul, without the crazy.”
This neutralizing effect would quell the anxiety over future attempts at interparty quibbling and reported outright fraud.
Even the firebrand Alex Jones, an advocate of libertarianism and
paleoconservative ethos, on his radio program today wanted to believe
that Rand and Ron Paul were more politically savvy than it would seem
given the endorsement. However, he argued that not only was this a bad
move for Rand Paul, who has been on his show many times along with his
father Ron Paul, but it was a move that the media elite and
establishment agents may use to attempt to splinter the liberty
movement.
Cynicism has its place, however, sometimes it gets in
the way. Jones does bring up a great point though, Ron and Rand most
definitely coordinated the move, but to what end? Cillizza points to
something we’ve all suspected, but what about the Romney/Paul ticket?
We have speculated Ron Paul as a possible Vice President and gave the reasons why it would be a good idea. We have also suggested Rand may be tapped for VP for the same reasons. Daniel McCarthy of The American Conservative gives a few more:
"The
symbolic power shift of putting an anti-statist, non-interventionist
Republican in the number 2 slot — in contrast to Cheney in the last GOP
administration — would have real-world consequences. That would keep
Romney more interested than he would otherwise be in placating
constitutionalists, for fear of an embarrassing split within his
adminitration.
And a public official never just occupies a single
office: the staff that Rand would put into executive-branch positions
(even those associated with the institutionally weak vice presidency)
would gain experience that would make them powerful rivals to the
neoconservatives in staffing future GOP administrations."
Unfortunately
none of these scenarios are likely to come to fruition. The motivation
against Barack Obama is demonstrably more widespread than the
enthusiasm for Rand Paul and other than enthusiasm and fresh ideas Rand
Paul doesn’t bring much to the table – as far as an establishment
politician is concerned. Marco Rubio on the other hand offers Latinos
and Florida, Nikki Haley offers women and ostensibly some
libertarianism, while Rob Portman is simply a reassuring water carrier.
To be sure, this was a political
decision; therefore it should be judged on those grounds. If Rand Paul
doesn’t get anything for his endorsement, while pulling the chair out
from under his supporters, it will be to his chagrin. However, speaking
slots at the GOP convention, cabinet appointments and other tangible
influence will be a victory for the liberty wing of the GOP.
Revolutions don’t occur overnight, at least the organic ones.
After a quick survey of the world’s economies it is easy to become
pessimistic. The BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) are all
slowing in growth, they account for much of the world’s raw production
and nearly 1/3 of its economy. The first world or OECD hasn’t changed
much since the 2008 crisis slugging along at a 2-3% growth depending
where you look, anywhere from 8-15% unemployment and together their debt
is even more abhorrent, a cumulative 106% of GDP.
The Baltic Tiger Amidst the Bleating Sheep
Macroeconomics aside, there are a few diamonds in the rough, which is
to say, low debt, high growth and low or lowering unemployment
diamonds. Estonia, for example, sixteen months after joining the
languishing EU bloc enjoys a budget surplus, national debt is at 6% and
its economy grew at a neck breaking 7.6% last year, five times the euro-zone average.
We have discussed this Baltic Tiger
and its disheartening and tumultuous history before, apparently it was
those hard years, which forged a resilient nation. So resilient in fact
that it bounced back from a nearly 18% contraction, an economic hay
maker straight to the chin, as a result of 2008 world financial crisis. How did they do it?
“I can answer in one word: austerity. Austerity, austerity, austerity,”
says Peeter Koppel, investment strategist at the SEB Bank.
PurpleSerf.com also examined the structural cause last year:
“Estonia features a constitutionally mandated balanced budget, the highest levels of internet freedom, one of the world’s first flat tax systems
(the government has just approved to cut income tax from 21% to 20% by
2015), an open banking system allowing for generous foreign investment,
and unlike the United States (sitting on unparalleled and untouched oil
reserves) Estonia is self sustaining supplying 90% of their energy from
local oil shale…
Bam! Tell me where you can find that anywhere in the EU.
As far as their ethos is concerned, however, it may be that nearly
700 years from agrarian serfs to Soviet comrades has thickened their
skin. While the rest of the EU: France, Greece, Ireland, etc. bemoan
trimming government largesse and entitlements, in many cases literally
setting their cities aflame in protest, Estonians have stoically borne
the harshest of austerity measures. When it was time to tighten their
belt in 2008 many in Estonian society may have already had bored the
extra holes. From Global Post:
“For older Estonians, memories of the grim days of Soviet
occupation make it easier to accept sacrifices today. Among the young,
there is a widespread awareness that in a nation of just 1.3 million
people, the freedom and opportunities their generation enjoy depends on
unity in times of crisis.
‘Western Europe has not really experienced a decrease in living
standards since the Second World War,’ says Koppel. ‘Historically,
austerity is inevitable, but it’s not part of the culture of Western
Europe right now. This is what really differentiates us, that we were
able to understand that.'"
Small is Beautiful: More Governments, Less Governance
Perhaps, it isn’t just historical frugality, which produces this type
of serenity in the face of the vicissitudes of life. Perhaps it’s the
“1.3 million,” the size of the polity, we should be taking a look at.
As we mentioned before there are diamonds in the rough and as such
they are small amidst the economic weeds of this world. Nonetheless the
are brilliant and just as valuable to our overall health, hence “Govern Locally, Not Globally.” These are just some of the world’s smaller more successful states. You can tell partly because they’re rarely in the news.
Country
Size (sq mi) / Population
Emp. / Debt (GDP) / Growth
Hong Kong
426 / 7 mil
3.4% / NA / 7.2%
Andorra
180 / 84,000
2.9% / NA / -1.9%
Estonia
17,413 / 1.3 mil
11.3% / 6% / 7.8%
Azerbaijan
33,436 / 9.1 mil
1% / 4.7% / 0.2%
Lithuania
25,174 / 3.1 mil
15.6% / 37.7% / 5.8%
Latvia
24,938 / 2.2 mil
13% / 44.8% / 4%
Singapore
274 / 5.1 (3.2 citizens) mil
2% / 118% / 4.9%
Iceland
39,770 / 320,060
6% / 130% / 2.4%
Costa Rica
19,653 / 4.3 mil
6.5% / 44.5% / 4%
Switzerland
15,940 / 7.9 mil
3.1% / 52.4% / 2.1%
Qatar
4,416 / 1.8 mil
0.4% / 8.9% / 18.7%
Seychelles
174 / 84,000
2% / 46.2% / 5%
United Arab Emirates
32,278 / 8.2 mil
2.4% / 43.9% / 3.3%
San Marino
24 / 31,887
5.5% / NA / 1%
It is clear when you contrast these numbers with the major economies
above, albeit some outliers exist, small and beautiful is also more
manageable and agile. While not even small countries are perfect the
trajectory is what is most important. In every one of the
aforementioned countries there are bright spots to point to, if not, the
countries are lean and prosperous.
Aside from the numbers let us ask ourselves “What Small Countries Can Teach the World.”
The study by Jeffery A. Frankel of Harvard University’s Kennedy School
of Government and its conclusions is heretical to macrostate hegemony, a
world that consists merely of 189 some odd countries. The small
advanced countries of this planet have so much to teach us if we would
just listen: New Zealand’s Inflation Targeting, Estonia’s flat tax,
Switzerland’s debt brake, Ireland’s FDI policy, Canada’s banking
structure, Sweden’s Nordic model, and the Netherlands’ labor market
reforms offer so much to our large and lumbering economies.
So many conservatives and libertarians browbeat economic competition
when they would just as easily win over their communist, socialist,
green, etc. enemies by merely championing “Let a 1000 Nations Bloom!”
After all it’s the “Most Progressive Movement on the Planet,”
but unlike big government solutions and the few experiments they leave
us to compare their policies against, this new ethos values competitive
governance. Stop fighting our government and have them fight over us
for once. If we can’t create new governments on land there are even
ideas of making them available at sea.
Fresh air anyone?
Once upon a time in America we had 47 of what Justice Brandeis once
called the “laboratories of democracy”, each one imbued with all the
powers necessary for effective governance. The people of America had 47
different options of where to live and under what system to thrive.
Since we dismantled the Senate, instituted a private financial
dictatorship and forced all wage earners to pay the government before
they paid themselves in 1913 those hedges against government intervention and corporate escapade were lost in the fog of reform and "progress."
“In 1943 Kohr secured a professorship at Rutgers, where
he taught for 12 years, during which time he finished his central work,
“The Breakdown of Nations.” Published first in Britain, in 1957, the
book develops his theory of the optimal size of polities: “There seems
to be only one cause behind all forms of social misery: bigness.” Size
was the root of all evil: “Whenever something is wrong, it is too big.”
Unsurprisingly, Kohr’s guiding principle was anarchism, “the noblest
of philosophies.” But its inherent nobility, he recognized, also made it
utopian: a truly anarchist society could do away with governments and
states only if all individuals were ethical enough to respect one
another’s boundaries. Kohr cleverly turned this utopianism upside down,
from weakness to strength: any party, any leader, any ideology promising
utopia is automatically wrong, or lying. Acceptance of utopia’s
unattainability, in other words, is the best insurance against
totalitarianism.
But if the ideal state cannot be attained, at least it can be
approached, Kohr thought, by reducing the scale of government. Which
sounds a lot like the famous quote from Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience”:
“That government is best which governs least.” But in Kohr’s vision,
smaller government should mean, first and foremost, a smaller area to
govern. In such smallness, greatness resides. Counterintuitive as that
may sound, didn’t Greece and Italy have their Golden Ages when they were
divided into countless city-states? Not a coincidence, according to
Kohr: smaller states produce more culture, wealth and happiness.”
Instead of 17 hulking EU states, which are quickly coalescing into one Euro Super State (a possible 4th Reich,
according to George Soros) or heading for a cataclysmic breakup,
imagine a setting similar to what the U.S. enjoyed for the first part of
its life.
Unfortunately history nor ethnic considerations
come into play on this
map, but you get the idea.
In the near future there may be nothing left
of Europe’s borders.
Needless to say this inaugural part of American history, prior to 1913
and the firs World War, made possible the realization of what has been
referred to as the “5000 year leap.”
