Archive for October, 2007

Date: October 5th, 2007, Filed under Housing Bubble

Fresh news this morning as the FDIC reports on another bank, the third one in this credit bubble crash, going under. Miami Valley Bank, in Ohio, is now in receivership with close to US$90 million in deposits. According to the Reuters report, the bank has deposits totaling over US$14 million that don’t qualify for FDIC insurance due to being over the US$100,000 cap on deposit insurance per depositor. This is a lot of money for people left holding the bag, who become “creditors” instead of depositors. If you’ve ever had a borrower declare bankruptcy on a loan you’re holding, you know how much you usually end up with: zero.

Read the rest of this article at the housing bubble blog.

Comments: none

Date: October 4th, 2007, Filed under Ron Paul

Schaumburg, IL
By A.B. Dada
—

I was reading the Andrew Sullivan’s summary of an article in the NY Times regarding the renewed torture effort by the U.S., and it is obvious that both the mainstream press, and the blogging media, forget one issue that is bigger than the debate as to what defines a war criminal: the obvious destruction of the Separation and Balance of Powers that the U.S. Constitution outlines. When a Federal employee who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution violates that oath, we have a far bigger crime than a war crime.

The idea of using torture is one that is despicable to me, because history has shown that people will admit to anything under torture, even if they have no knowledge of what they’re admitting to. We’ve seen videos of journalists undergoing controlled torture, who have caved in minutes or less to admitting to crimes they didn’t commit. We’ve seen decades of “criminals” on death row who admitted to a crime, only to be cleared of the crime after DNA and other evidence surfaced, and those very “criminals” speaking of the torture they were interrogated under.

Yet is torture a war crime if we haven’t had a Declaration of War? If you go to your neighbor’s property and kill them, that is murder. If you go to your neighbor’s property and pummel them, that is initiating unprovoked force against another in an offensive fashion. Both of these are property crimes, which are supposedly government’s job to protect against and judge against. I don’t agree that we need government to handle property crimes, but if we are to understand why we need government, we need to understand what their purpose is: to handle property disputes and to handle property crimes.

A Declaration of War is an act of Congress, and only Congress. The Declaration of War is important because it puts every Congressional Representative on the line as responsible for pushing for a war. Without a Declaration of War by Congress, there is no accountability in the actions of the military, from the top down. The Executive Branch takes the Bills passed by Congress (and the Senate) and executes them, within the confines of the Constitution, a document that limits what the Federal government can do. Without a Declaration of War, the Executive branch can not act aggressively.

Without that act of Congress, actions taken against foreigners are criminal actions. Murdering a foreign soldier on foreign land is murder, yet a Declaration of War can limit that to being an act of self-defense during war if the act is against a soldier that is attacking the one defending themselves. We don’t have a Declaration of War by Congress, and haven’t had one since World War II. Why? Because Congress, the Executive Branch, and the Judicial Branch have all violated their oaths to uphold the Constitution. What we have now is an unconstitutional action that should be investigated immediately — but it won’t, because the Balance of Powers and the Separation of Powers are gone. Instead of having 3 branches of Federal government fighting against one another in trying to keep Federal government small, we have 3 branches of Federal government all colluding together to produce a more powerful State, which makes each employee more powerful as well. This is not the intention of the Constitution, a document that is an easy read even for an 8th grader.

Dr. Paul’s view on returning to a Constitutional Republic show strength on many levels, but I believe his best view is returning the strong Separation of Powers back to the Federal branches. We don’t need to see Democrats versus Republicans versus Independents battling in Congress, we need to see the Supreme Court and the President battling all of Congress, and vice versa. Separating the powers of each branch will go a long way to keeping Federal government small, since each branch has an oath to uphold.

Personally, I don’t know who is a war criminal, and what the penalty should be if they were convicted of being a war criminal. I do know that most every top official of every branch of government is violating the oath to uphold the Constitution as their primary job. That means sticking to the intent of having a small, unobtrusive and particularly weak Federal government that leaves MOST laws and regulations to the States, or preferably to the People if they can handle the responsibility.

It’s important to understand that if anyone is indicted as a war criminal, we must look beyond just the Executive branch. All 3 branches colluded together to destroy the Separation of Powers, and all 3 branches should be investigated, indicted, and tried based on the succinct and specific powers they extended beyond as laid out in the Constitution.

Comments: none

Date: October 3rd, 2007, Filed under Ron Paul

Chicago, IL
By A.B. Dada
—

As many know, I’m not a fan of voting in an actual campaign to elect a political official. To me, the act of voting has two problems: (a) it informs political candidates that you accept giving up personal sovereignty (over yourself, your property and your income) in exchange for accepting future actions of a candidate, and (b) it promotes the use of force to make societal change.

In terms of personal sovereignty, one must acknowledge a few “evils” of the political system:

1. You aren’t asking someone to continue to do what they’ve done in the past, but you are approving their future actions even if they’re evil. This means that you may tell someone you are voting for them because they’ve lowered taxes in the past, but if they start raising taxes after an election, your vote gave them the power to do so. You have no chance to change your vote until the next election.

2. You are acknowledging that someone else has certain powers over your body, your property and your money. I know that the police aren’t there to protect me (no matter what their car slogans say), so why would I give them the power to use force against me or anyone else, if there isn’t any proof that the use of force is good rather than bad? When you tell someone it is fine to take your money, for whatever reason they decide, you’re giving up the individual responsibility of handling that money properly and using it for what makes your life better today or in the future. As a sovereign individual, you accept the responsibility of earning, saving and spending — if you screw up, you have only yourself to blame.

3. The act of voting is the act of accepting the outcome of all previous politicians. Even if you disagree with what politicians have done in the past (and actively voted them out), your vote still tells future politicians that you support the system, even when it was terrible. A Republican voting for a Republican says that they accept the person’s actions in office, and if that person was a Democrat, the voting system got them there. Voting, from my perspective, is the active acceptance of social contracts (unsigned), theft through taxation, preferential treatment of regulated industries, and the use of force (in your name) against individuals who may not have ever harmed you and had no connection to your life.

Because many people who are familiar with me know I have these beliefs, I come under a great burden for my financial and written-word support of Dr. Ron Paul, who is running for President on a Smaller Federal Government campaign stance. I have even actively said that I may “vote” in the primary, which is an election that gives no one any additional sovereignty over anyone, it just puts their message at the top of the actual election for the position.

I’ve said it before — I believe you should vote with your money and your own actions. That is the best vote you can make. When you buy a burger from Burger King instead of McDonalds across the street, you actively vote by saying “Burger King meets my needs best.” That vote can be changed the next day, or the next week, or never. The same is true of an employer-employee relationship where the employer uses money (”vote”) to tell the employee that they are the best provider for a service, and the employee tells the employer that they are the best provider for the employee’s financial income (”vote”). This is good because that vote can also be changed by either party. I also believe this form of voting via money and actions is better than political voting: if you don’t like abortion, don’t have an abortion, and make active steps with your money and your actions to help others considering an abortion (adopt their child, give them money to support raising the child, volunteer your time to teach or babysit the child). This is far better than any law because it gives each unique situation the care and finances it needs to fulfill a better end result. Laws against abortion are never written how you might want them to be written, and they don’t consider each and every possible situation as is presented. Laws are too vague and usually not very consistent.

Because I believe that the act of voting with your dollars and your actions is key to changing society for the better, I believe that everyone who is effected by government should be able to spend their money to make change as they see fit. Even if they can’t vote in an election, they should be able to support a message of a given candidate, party or PAC with whatever funds they see fit. I believe all campaign finance laws are unconstitutional — the right to speak and the right to advocate your opinion goes hand-in-hand with how you spend your money. Buying a burger from Burger King is advocating support for Burger King over McDonalds, which is a form of expression, even if you don’t vocalize it.

Today, because of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1974, foreigners can not use their money freely to support their opinion or expression as they want to. The U.S. Constitution acknowledges that ALL people, citizens, legal and illegal aliens, and foreigners, are all born with the freedom to speak and express themselves. Some people may live in a country where this right is trampled on by their government, but our Constitution is written to tell government that they have no right to hamper that inherent (God-given in my opinion) right to express yourself. The law is written against government, and it is clear:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The First Amendment to the Constitution was written to stop government from getting in the way of your right to speak, or assemble, or express yourself, or petition said government for a redress of grievances. It was written to block the United States government from acting in any way, against anyone (citizen, foreigner, alien) at any time. Any Federal law written to restrain your inherent freedom to speak, assemble or support your beliefs is illegal, regardless of what the SCOTUS says.

That being said, the United States is currently involved in over 100 countries in the world — countries where the people of those countries don’t have the freedom to support messages they agree with in the U.S. I believe that FECA is wrong to restrict who can use their money to support the messages they want to — foreign or abroad. If a foreigner wishes to support a campaign of a Federal politician, they should be free to. Sure, this could mean more money for Hilary or Giuliani, but since the U.S. believes it can entangle itself with foreigners, those foreigners should have the ability to support any message they wish — pro-entanglement or against it.

Dr. Paul has a huge support base outside of the U.S. There are dozens of websites of foreigners that support his campaign. Personally, I support his message over his campaign (as even Dr. Paul himself has said). The message of less government is a positive message to support, and I will continue to do so financially, even if he doesn’t get my vote in the big election itself. While I believe that Paul would be the best person of all the current politicians for the role of President, my moral compass disallows me from giving up my sovereignty even to someone that I like and generally trust. The act of voting for Paul, if you spend your vote on any other politician (say Congress or Senate), approves of what the next group of elect will do in office. Paul might be President, but do you trust the rest of the elect, Congress and Senate, to do right? Over-riding a Presidential veto is not that hard if you have 535 pro-force Representatives versus 1 anti-force (generally) President.

I believe it is time to let all people vote with their dollars, through commercial purchases, employment agreements, and support of a candidate’s message. I also believe it is fine for someone who is anti-State to support the message of a candidate, even finance them, and not be a hypocrite as long as an active vote for the final election is cast.

Comments: none

Date: October 1st, 2007, Filed under Housing Bubble

A regular reader of this site asks an important question:

When you say a mortgage payment shouldn’t exceed 28% of gross salary, and when Dave Ramsey says it shouldn’t exceed 25% to 33% of net pay, do you (and he?) mean a mortgage payment of:

P & I: Principal and interest?

or:

PITI: Principal, Interest, Tax, and Insurance?

Read my entire answer at the housing bubble blog.

Comments: 1

Date: October 1st, 2007, Filed under Gold Investment

Gold’s recent price-rise has been connected to the fall of value in the US dollar due to the recent federal rate drop by the Fed in September, which is a price-rise that I concur with, but I believe is limiting in being the only reason. Some analysts are also connecting the rise in the currency-price of gold as connecting with the Indian marriage season, where families buy a significant amount of gold jewelry that is used in the wedding ceremony and as a form of early-savings for the newlyweds, but this too is not enough to try to understand the reason for gold’s current boom, and what may lay ahead in the future.

Read this entire article at the gold investment site.

Comments: none

Date: October 1st, 2007, Filed under Ron Paul

Ft. Atkinson, WI
By A.B. Dada
—

Many of my neoconservative friends (and I don’t use that as an ad hominem attack) don’t like Ron Paul because of his desire to withdraw United States military troops from all the various countries and regions where they are stationed, including Iraq and Afghanistan. Paul’s stance, which is Constitutionally correct in my opinion, is that the United States can’t wage aggressive action without a declaration of Congress. For those who are familiar with U.S. history, the last time an actual Congressional Declaraction of War was waged was for World War II. Since then, all military actions have been supra-Constitutional: beyond the scope of the Constitution and therefore exceeding the power of the Federal government.

Many of my neoconservative friends seem to like Paul on his taxation stance (end the IRS), and some like his Federal Reserve stance (end it). In other areas they are not so fond of him, but they’ll grudgingly accept that he is definitely a paleoconservative a la Goldwater and Taft.

I’ve explained to many the ideals of a Paul Presidency: his 3 decades of history in Federal government prove repeatedly that he is a man of his word; as far as I can tell, he has never broken promises or violated his Constitutional oath. The same can’t be said of every other Congressman and Senator in that time frame, unfortunately.

For neoconservatives, this should be a HUGE reason to support a Paul Presidency, even if he is adamant about withdrawing from the Middle East. Just because Paul says that he won’t wage a war against Iran (or Iraq or Afghanistan) does not mean that a war won’t be waged. As President, Constitutionally Paul would not have the power to make that decision. It is Congress’ power to wage war.

Picture this: Dr. Paul gets elected as President in 2008. He immediately issues a command for an organized and efficient withdrawal of troops from 150+ countries and regions in the world, over a period of time. Of course this would anger many who believe the United States has a moral reason for being the world’s policeman, but this would not just end there. As President, Paul would have to go with what Congress voted in terms of going to war. If there is support, as my neoconservative friends say there is, amongst the population of the United States, do you really think it would be that hard to get Congress to make a formal declaration of war against nations that have possibly shown an aggressive stance towards the United States?

I myself would not see a need to wage war in any situation except a direct, State-sanctioned attack on United States soil. This means an active State waging an active war against the United States.

Should the People give Congress a reason to wage war, the President is in no position to deny it (except by veto power, but we have to assume that the Constitution was written to provide for the opportunity of a Declaration of War if a vast majority of Congress supported it). The process is simple enough: Congress makes a formal declaration in numbers that would override a veto. Paul would be Commander in Chief, and as he believes in the Constitution, it would be his job to follow Congress’ management and financing of said war.

While I won’t support such a war, it would be a “win-win” situation for the Constitution and the neoconservatives: the war would be formally declared, we would have a definitive vote on who voted for and against the formal declaration, and we’d have a President who who wage the war in a way to speed up victory and reduce the risk of military and civilian deaths significantly.

Since we don’t have any active declarations by Congress, today’s wars are mismanaged, overextended, and inefficient because there is no consensus by the People, by Congress and by the Executive branch. A formal declaration would fix many of these problems, giving all parties in the action a strong reason to get in, get the job done, and get out.

Again, I don’t support war for any reason, but I do understand the Constitutional requirements that the United States runs by. I think there are peaceful market solutions for aggressive nations, and while I do support a significantly smaller State, I do see the power of the Constitution in reducing the ills that are caused by a too powerful State.

Comments: 3