Reefer Madness

Manchester Mayor and likely gubernatorial candidate Frank Guinta has called on state Rep. David Scannell to resign his position as spokesman for the Manchester school district after the representative voted in favor of decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana.

I like what School Board member Chris Herbert had to say: "I don't know what the mayor's deal is. A majority of the House voted for it." True, Scannell is in a unique position working for the school district, but shouldn't kids learn sometime that it is not contradictory to support marijuana decrim on the one hand and oppose drug use on the other.

I also do not agree with this quote: "Scannell insisted he will not resign, saying his vote is a form of political speech protected by the U.S. Constitution." I think it would be better to invoke Article 30, Section 1 of the New Hampshire Constitution: "The freedom of deliberation, speech, and debate, in either house of the legislature, is so essential to the rights of the people, that it cannot be the foundation of any action, complaint, or prosecution, in any other court or place whatsoever." Guinta's letter calling for Scannell's resignation is clearly a political ploy. However, I believe trying to make a man lose his job (which Scannell's coworkers say he does well) over something entirely political is not appropriate.

I don't think Guinta should be worrying too much about Scannell's vote, however. Governor Lynch says he will veto the bill if it reaches his desk. To boot, Senate Majority Leader Joseph Foster said: "I don't think he's going to be seeing it. I know of no interest in the Senate on either side of the aisle to entertain that bill." Why would they entertain a bill that brings the punishment closer in line with the crime?

State House Gun Ban Defeated

HB 1354 was defeated yesterday by a vote of 279-19. The bill would have made it illegal to carry any firearm (open or concealed) or deadly weapon within the State House.

I am not aware of any incidents involving a misuse of firearms in the State House, and I know for a fact that some people do carry inside the building. This is not, however, a matter of how many problems firearms have caused in our state's capitol; this is a matter of whether our representatives believe in our state constitution. Article 2-a states: "All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state." Pretty simple and straightforward to me. Defending the State House is about as close as you can get to defending the "state" itself.

If your representative is on the following list of those who voted against killing this bill, I would recommend sending them a polite message asking them why:

Allen, Peter Democrat Cheshire 6 Nay
Butcher, Suzanne Democrat Cheshire 3 Nay
Chase, Claudia Democrat Hillsborough 2 Nay
Cooney, Mary Democrat Grafton 7 Nay
Cunningham, Howard Democrat Carroll 3 Nay
Fletcher, Richard Republican Hillsborough 7 Nay
Gile, Mary Democrat Merrimack 10 Nay
Ginsburg, Ruth Democrat Hillsborough 20 Nay
Hall, Betty Democrat Hillsborough 5 Nay
Howard, Doreen Democrat Rockingham 12 Nay
Kepner, Susan Democrat Rockingham 15 Nay
Levesque, Melanie Democrat Hillsborough 5 Nay
Moody, Marcia Democrat Rockingham 12 Nay
Nielsen, Ellen Democrat Sullivan 4 Nay
Osborne, Jessie Democrat Merrimack 12 Nay
Pilotte, Maurice Democrat Hillsborough 16 Nay
Preston, Philip Democrat Grafton 8 Nay
Weed, Charles Democrat Cheshire 3 Nay
Yeaton, Charles Democrat Merrimack 8 Nay

Marijuana Decrim Bill Passes NH House

HB 1623, a bill that would decriminalize possession of marijuana under 1/4 of an ounce, passed the New Hampshire House of Representatives today by a vote of 193-141. Current law states that anyone in possession of 1/4 of an ounce or less can be sent to jail for a year and be fined up to $2,000; if passed by the Senate and signed by the Governor, the new law would abolish criminal penalties and reduce the fines to a maximum of $200.

The Message Will Never Die

Great Ron Paul video:

The Lie About Earmarks

John McCain is furious that the Senate shot down his proposal to have a one-year moratorium on spending earmarks. The Senate blocked the proposal by a vote of 71-29 on Thursday. McCain is not a fiscal conservative in any sense of the word; thus, he attacks earmarks as some kind of financial plague that is bankrupting our country.

The truth of the matter is earmarks are merely a way to distribute money that has already been approved for spending. The Congressional Research Service defines earmarks (PDF), informally, as "provisions associated with legislation (appropriations or general legislation) that specify certain congressional spending priorities."

Even if earmarks represent an increase in spending, the total for the latest budget equals a grand total of $14.8 billion. That is out of a $3.1 trillion budget. Will 0.4% of the latest budget really bring financial ruin? For some reason I think the $9.5 trillion of national debt or the inflationary policies of the Federal Reserve pose a greater threat to our economy than Congressional earmarking.

But if he wants to make an issue of negligible spending, John "Open Borders" McCain should look into the proposed United States/Mexico Totalization Agreement. This plan will give Social Security benefits to Mexican citizens who work in the United States as little as a few months. The low-end cost estimates (i.e. government figures) project it will cost $525 million over the first five years. Of course, that wouldn't fit into McCain's agenda of loose borders and wild spending.

I wish McCain would stop pretending to be fiscally responsible. He is just another tax-and-spend Republican in the mold of George W. Bush, who was the biggest spender since LBJ and his Great Society. I also wish he, and all his Beltway buddies would stop playing these stupid games with earmarks and tackle the real financial crises we are facing. Alas, I doubt McCain will suddenly become a voting-clone of Ron Paul.

Yes, We Brought Freedom to Iraq

Neocons love to list off the many reasons why it was good to liberate Iraq. Of course Islam takes a lot of heat. Subjugation of women is a big one for lots of neoconservatives. Many Christian neocons believe we need to overthrow all governments that have Muslims within their ranks; if we don't do it, they will come over here and make our women wear burkhas and subject us to Sharia law.

Our occupation of Iraq, however, has led to an increase in the persecution of Christians and galvanization of the more radical Muslims. A perfect example is here. Archbishop Paulos Faraj Rahho of Mosul, whose body was found yesterday, was one of the highest Catholic clergymen in Iraq. Our invasion and occupation did not bring freedom; if anything it has brought out the more brutal elements.

Please, fellow Christians, if you still support this war, just look at the impact it is having on Christians in that part of the world.

Lew Rockwell on Antiwar Radio

I just got around to listening to this interview today. It is a great survey of all topics important to libertarians: war, economics, political philosophy. Lots of memorable insights during this hour long interview.

Listen here.

Speaking of stable prices...

Fed chairman Ben Bernanke testified before Congress a few days ago, and was schooled once again by Ron Paul. My favorite statement by Bernanke, which he often repeats when discussing monetary issues with Dr. Paul, is that he is charged with creating "stable prices" via the workings of the central bank. It honestly blows my mind that you can assume you are creating price stability by inflating the money supply. Look at this graph of the MZM money stock:

The MZM money supply measurement is the sum of all physical currency, and checking, savings, and money market accounts. As you can see in the graph, this measure of money supply has increased from about $1 trillion in the early 1980's to an astounding $8 trillion today. Every extra dollar added to the money supply lessens the value of every existing dollar.

Just using that fact Bernanke should realize that there is inflation, and therefore prices are not stable. But what he does not even take into account is that in a free market system, with a money supply determined by the market, prices will tend to fall. Does it make any sense that in January of 1996 a gallon of whole milk cost $2.55 and in January of 2008 that same gallon of milk costs $3.87? Shouldn't the price of milk be falling as new technologies and techniques increase the rate of production?

I'm sure Bernanke would argue that there are other factors that lead to the increase of prices for things like Milk, Oil, and Bread. I would say, as Ron Paul did in the Congressional hearing, that prices seem to be stable when compared to the price of gold. We all complain of the rising price of oil, and its derivative gasoline, but do we ever ask what causes this? I believe it is mostly inflation (of course with the increased demand from China and a decreased supply from places like Iraq). Look at this graph of the Price of Oil vs. the Price of Gold:

Seems to me that over the 36 year period in this graph there wasn't much change in the price of oil relative to that of gold. People always say that advocates of a gold standard are strange. Do you think it is strange to want prices that are not continually rising? If you do, just chew on this fact: $100 in 1913 (when the Federal Reserve was created) is equivalent to $2,132.12 in 2008. That's all inflation.

So the next time you hear the Federal Reserve "economists" saying they are looking to stabilize prices and keep inflation to a minimum, remember that in nearly 100 years of existence they have done the opposite of that. Gold and silver look better every day.

Return to Isolationism

My article for the current issue of The Kenyon Observer is now online at out brand-new website. Here is the opening paragraph:

"American foreign policy has become infused with an air of self-righteousness and moral superiority. We have long since strayed from the advice of Thomas Jefferson, that it is best to maintain 'peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.' Foreign adventurism, never-ending war, and complex alliances have entirely perverted the foundation of this country’s foreign policy."

Read the Rest.

The Ron Paul Counter-Revolution

Many libertarians laud the American colonists for instigating a revolution against the British crown, and rightly so. I don't see any more effective redress for the time and circumstances. But I have begun to think that continuing such an analogy to the Ron Paul movement is in error.

Can we really call this the Ron Paul Revolution? I say this is a Counter-Revolution. What is revolutionary about bringing back the traditions of freedom and limited government? I say it is revolutionary to call for destroying the Constitution and starting wars to "democratize" those countries we view as uncivilized.

Garet Garrett put it best in the opening of The Revolution Was:

"There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs to freedom."

We are here to take back what is rightfully ours; no more New Deal-style socialism; no more Wilsonian wars for "democracy"; we want authentic prosperity and lasting peace.

What brought this all together for me was reading a blog post by John Cochran on the Mises Institute Blog. He posted a poem by Patrick Barrington, entitled "I Want to be a Consumer":

I Want to be a Consumer

"And what do you mean to be?"
The kind old Bishop said
As he took the boy on his ample knee
And patted his curly head.
"We should all of us choose a calling
To help Society's plan;
Then what to you mean to be, my boy,
When you grow to be a man?"

"I want to be a Consumer,"
The bright-haired lad replied
As he gazed into the Bishop's face
In innocence open-eyed.
"I've never had aims of a selfish sort,
For that, as I know, is wrong.
I want to be a Consumer, Sir,
And help the world along."

"I want to be a Consumer
And work both night and day,
For that is the thing that's needed most,
I've heard Economists say,
I won't just be a Producer,
Like Bobby and James and John;
I want to be a Consumer, Sir,
And help the nation on."

"But what do you want to be?"
The Bishop said again,
"For we all of us have to work," said he,
"As must, I think, be plain.
Are you thinking of studying medicine
Or taking a Bar exam?"
"Why, no!" the bright-haired lad replied
As he helped himself to jam.

"I want to be a Consumer
And live in a useful way;
For that is the thing that is needed most,
I've heard Economists say.
There are too many people working
And too many things are made.
I want to be a Consumer, Sir,
And help to further trade."

"I want to be a Consumer
And do my duty well;
For that is the thing that is needed most,
I've heard Economists tell.
I've made up my mind," the lad was heard,
As he lit a cigar, to say;
"I want to be a Consumer, Sir,
And I want to begin today."

The true revolutionaries are those who inverted the entire discipline of economics. The Austrian economists fought for decades to show that prosperity can only be attained through production, savings, and capital accumulation.

The post-Keynesian and neoclassical economists of today would have you believe that printing money and spending it is the true path to a world of wealth. That is simply wrong; it is, however, the true path to depression and financial disarray.

I could be mistaken, but I do not see what is revolutionary about returning to sound economics, limited government, and a humble foreign policy. We had it once and they stole it from us. Let's win it back.

Long Live the Counter-Revolution!