My Liberty NOW

your source for liberty news.

Archive for the ‘Opinions’ Category

Obama’s withdraw from Iraq: Too “bold” for politics

leave a comment »

An article by Marc Lynch on ForeignPolicy.com credited Obama with the Iraq withdraw as being more for policy, and less for politics. “In many ways, it would have been safer politically for Obama to keep the residual force in Iraq which hawks demanded to insulate himself against charges of having ‘lost Iraq’.” said Lynch.

Its true that American forces did little to stop the looting that strangled Baghdad only days after the iconic statue of Sadam Husein fell. American policy in Baghdad disbanded the entire Iraqi army, leaving thousands of bitter, gun-savvy soldiers wandering the street without a means to support their families.  Firefights broke out around the city, kidnappings and other gang-business became prevalent, and the people’s desperation allowed fundamentalist clerics to rise to power. Public offices were sacked, and museums were burned and items looted. In fact, the only infrastructure that was defended by American troops when they hit the ground was — you guessed it — the oil lines. The question must be asked, what would US forces be doing for the Iraqi people, if they stayed? Not much.

About 75% of America supported Obama’s call for withdraw. Indeed, it seems obtuse to assume the American people were ever really interested in “spreading democracy” in the first place. And now with unemployment on the rise, the failing purchasing power of the dollar, and the increasing national debt, Iraq has been all but forgotten in American discourse — and good riddance to it.

Iraq was Bush’s war, not ours. Thank God it’s over, and welcome home, boys.

Written by Jonathan Mark

January 17, 2012 at 9:42 am

“Liberty” group attacks Huntsman for speaking Chinese: Good grief!

leave a comment »


This attack ad was posted on YouTube on January 4th, depicting Jon Huntsman speaking Mandarin and taking personal stabs at his adopted, Chinese children. The ad depicts Huntsman as Chairman-Mao and questions his American “values.” To make matters worse, the group calls themselves “New Hampshire Liberty 4 Paul,” as in Ron Paul.

Having lived in Japan for nearly two years myself, and speaking a fair amount of Japanese, should my values be questioned, too? Is my face to be superimposed on the shoulders of Emperor Showa, in full military regalia, sounding the charge on Pearl Harbor?

Several articles in the press have commented on Paul fan’s enthusiastic nature, but this is extreme, and inexcusable. The fact that Huntsman knows Chinese, has adopted Chinese daughters, should be a reason to vote for the man in this new era of internationalism. After all, China isn’t going anywhere. And while Huntsman backs many similar positions as Ron Paul, it is a shame that Paul supporters are taking it upon himself to make such shallow criticisms of the former Utah governor.

In a personal attempt to compensate for this childish tactic of some ambiguous Ron Paul group, here is Jon Huntsman’s campaign site. Donate today. And kindly remove your cranium from your posterior the next time you try to help the Ron Paul campaign.

Notably, the YouTube video has received an avalanche of negative feedback from the community, and, with all due respect, there are too many of them to all be Huntsman supporters.

Written by Jonathan Mark

January 7, 2012 at 3:23 pm

The rest of the world: Cap and Trade

leave a comment »

Though Republican Senators ultimately blocked the US Cap and Trade bill in 2008, nations around the world have embraced its peculiarities in the hopes of lower carbon emissions. As a result, all airlines to and from the EU are now required to enter into a Cap and Trade plan. Travelers can expect higher airfare as a result. (citation).

Though professed to be a “financial incentive” to lower carbon emissions, the result is more likely to be merely a emissions-shuffling scheme. “Carbon credits” are purchased like a license to produce so many tons of carbon emissions. When a company lowers their carbon emissions, they may qualify to sell their carbon credits to another company. Unless an international administrative body takes authority over the system, there would be no real incentive to reduce the amount of “carbon credits” in circulation, and thus, the carbon emissions in the world. Just like sloshing water around in a bucket, any point might have a higher water level than the other, but it’s still the same amount of water.

The real incentive for a Cap and Trade scheme seems to be that it is the world’s first, international, fiat commodity — that is expected to overtake all others in value. There is money to be made in this brand new market.

Should somebody decide they can open a “carbon credit bank” and charge interest on loans of these credits when businesses struggle to curb their emissions, we would have a new kind of world bank, overseen by no government, with loan leverage against all nations borrowing from it. Not to mention a global appraisal board that must be called on each time a company wants to shed its credits.

“Carbon credits” are fiat commodities, and likely the first of its kind.

Leave it to bankers to make another Frankenstein “exotic financial instrument” like “derivatives” and “futures” — and what a great idea those were.

Written by Jonathan Mark

January 7, 2012 at 8:21 am

Posted in News, Opinions

Tagged with ,

Santorum about his Ron-Paul-supporting Nephew: “It’s a phase”

leave a comment »

Rick Santorum was asked last Wednesday about his nephew’s endorsement of Ron Paul. “It’s a phase,” said Santorum, “I understand it. And so we all go through those things. God bless Johnny, it’s wonderful.”

Yes, God bless Johnny — and God help Santorum when news of his bribe-ridden voting record hits the mainstream. It is not likely that the people will dismiss his palm-greased politics as just a”phase,” too.

Written by Jonathan Mark

January 6, 2012 at 10:09 am

Iowa Caucus: Anti-Paul storm hits Internet

with 4 comments

On the day of the first caucus of our nation’s primary election, the internet is exploding with anti-Ron Paul articles. Virtually all of these criticize Paul for his radical ideas, some saying his proposals about the economy would worsen the situation, rather than better it. Santorum is calling Paul disgusting. Even Donald Trump is weighing in against Dr. Paul. What many of these articles lack, of course, is a rational explanation as to why Paul’s ideas would fail, and even less likely to offer an alternative.

Doesn’t it make you wonder, though, if Ron Paul is ignorantly promoting big-business interests…why the hell don’t they back him? If Paul would do nothing but widen the gap between the rich and the poor, and foot the middle class with the bill, why doesn’t he get more air time on Fox News and the debates? Something doesn’t add up.

Ron Paul’s principles would increase competition in the market. That means profits become more difficult to obtain, and maintain. But most importantly, Ron Paul’s policies would bar businesses from dumping their expense (externalities) on the taxpayer,such as: government-subsided construction of private assets, government bail-outs, and government buyouts of toxic private assets. Baring corporations from these threaten profits by taking away corporations’ usual strategy to minimize costs (thereby increase profit) through tax money. Your money.

The argument of Austrian Economics in light of our sound-byte, gossip news falls on deft ears of the masses — but not the establishment. They get it. They fear it. They give millions in advertising to the media companies. If Ron Paul truly was a champion of corporate interest, they wouldn’t be relying on 18-year-olds to make YouTube videos to promote Paul’s agenda. Think about it.

Written by Jonathan Mark

January 3, 2012 at 9:04 am

Washington Post writer accuses Paul of “Parroting the propaganda of al-Qaeda”

leave a comment »

Marc Thiessen wrote for Washington Post, saying Presidential Candidate Ron Paul is “parroting the propaganda of al-Qaeda” today in his opinion article, when Paul asserted the reasons for the 9/11 attacks were for the reasons the al-Qaeda gave us: that they attacked America because we have bases on their Holy Land in Saudi Arabia, that we do not give Palestinians fair treatment, and we have been bombing and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for ten years.

If these reasons are “al-Qaeda propaganda,” then what should we believe? The Bush rhetoric of, “They attack us because we are free?”

Surely the Washington Post writer, in his accusations of Paul being “nutty,” has an alternative explanation for the 9/11 attacks?

Ah — no, he doesn’t.

See for yourself.

Written by Jonathan Mark

January 2, 2012 at 5:29 pm