Middle East Election Fraud

First we had Iran, and now Afghanistan. I cannot understand, however, why their was such wide condemnation of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Iranian government in the news media, but there is no such indignation over allegations of vote rigging in Afghanistan.

So what is the difference in these two cases? Iran has been designated a "rogue regime" by our state and media overlords. Afghanistan was a "rogue regime" until it was duly conquered liberated by the United States government. And as we all know, being the U.S. government means never having to admit you're wrong. They cannot admit that trying to impose democracy at gunpoint was bound to have problems, and they cannot admit that there are striking parallels between the elections in Iran and Afghanistan.

The U.S. will take a wait-and-see approach to the election. As Special Envoy to Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke said: "The United States and the international community will respect the process set up by Afghanistan itself." Oh, okay. As long as that system was made available to the Afghan people without the outside help of the United States or any other foreign government, I guess it is all right.

It seems to me there are two ways of looking at all of this. First, the region is generally unstable, and there is no reason we should be wasting our money trying to promote fair elections there; or second, foreign involvement in the region has contributed to the instability and our continued presence will only ensure more turmoil and questioned elections.

Where am I politically?

Just reading this blog, you probably have a very good idea of where I stand. I still like to take these political spectrum quizzes, however.

My Political Views
I am a far-right social libertarian
Right: 8.76, Libertarian: 5.45

Political Spectrum Quiz

Live Free or Die is 200!

Today, New Hampshire's beloved motto "Live Free or Die," turns 200 years old. Now let's hope the people of this state will remember its meaning over the next 200 years.

Ben Bernanke is an Ignoramus

We trust this guy with controlling our money?

Letter to Paul Hodes

It is not often that I write my congresscritter. It is a futile exercise that ultimately only serves to add legitimacy to their actions. We still have the "right" to voice our opinions to our representatives in government. They can claim they weighed the thoughts of the people and that they decided accordingly. A load of hullabaloo if you ask me, but I think ending the Federal Reserve (well, in this specific instance, auditing it) is one of the most important issues of our time. The evil that is this organizatin cannot be overstated. So, to further the end of auditing the Fed, I sent the following letter to the "Honorable" Paul Hodes:

Rep. Hodes:

I am writing to request that you join 271 other Representatives in sponsoring H.R. 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009.

The Federal Reserve, since its inception in 1913, has caused massive devaluation of the dollar and the biggest financial crises this country has ever seen, including the Great Depression. Over the past century, many influential economists, such as Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich August von Hayek, and Murray Rothbard, have noted that central banks have the power to destabilize an economy through their manipulation of the money supply.

An audit of the Federal Reserve will likely highlight the enormous increase in the supply of money that has occurred during this current financial meltdown. The Fed has sent this money, often without congressional approval, to private companies for their own profit. The "independence" of the Fed threatens our Republic, our economy, and the quality of life for every American.

Sincerely,
Tyler Stearns

Faulty Depression History

Every time I see an investment product, like a stock or mutual fund, they always list the past earnings (always positive, of course) as a selling point. But if you notice, they are always sure to put in: "past performance does not guarantee future results." This is good advice, however. The economy consists of millions, billions even, of autonomous actors making their own decisions in an ever-changing environment. It would be foolish to look exclusively to the past to see into the future.

That is why I hate when people like Christina Romer, chairwoman of Barack Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, point to empirical evidence from the Great Depression to justify the policy of today as if it will have the same effects. But what I hate even more is when the empirical evidence doesn't even support the claim. Romer thinks it was a reduction in deficit spending that caused "the depression within the Depression" of 1937. Luckily we have Mises.org, where a great man like Robert Murphy can post an analysis of this claim. Click the link to find out why Romer's Keynesian fallacy is wrong. Hint: the empirical evidence is ambiguous and contradictory.

Interested in Purchasing Silver?

I have a small stock of .999 silver. This includes 1 oz. rounds and 10 oz. bars. I also have various 90% coins and other collector's coins. Send an email to livefreenh@hotmail.com if you are interested.

I'm Glad He's Here

Oops. Turns out the U.S. government will have to borrow $9.3 trillion over the next decade to pay for Obama's inane projects. Right now the national debt stands at just over $11 trillion. Our total Gross Domestic Product equals $14.5 trillion. So if we add all of that new debt to our current debt, we will have a national debt 140% of our total national GDP. That means it would take over an entire year to repay all the government owes; that is over a year of paying for nothing but debt and nothing else. And to bring it a little closer to home: $20.3 trillion in debt equals almost $67,000 per man, woman, and child in this country. I am sure it is all worth it, Barack.