There has been a great deal of disinformation, ignoring of facts and downright lying on the part of the Bush Administration and members of the media this week pertaining to events in the Caucasus region.  The Russo-Georgian War has really brought out the worst in the president and certain members of the so called “mainstream” media. 

For starters, as far as I can tell from my vantage point in Zambia, the western media generally has been remiss in detailing the historical facts as they relate to the conflict.  The history behind a crisis is vitally important to ultimately determine who started the problem and what should be done to rectify it.  Contrary to the views of President Bush and his media buddies, the Georgians, not the Russians are clearly at fault in this situation.  As recently as yesterday the president said that South Ossetia and Abkhazia are a part of Georgia.  Historically, both South Ossetia and Abkhazia have never been a part of Georgia except at times when they were made so by the force of an oppressor.  This happened twice to South Ossetia - in the 18^th Century when it was absorbed into Russia through an agreement with the Ottoman Empire and in the 1920s when the communists under Joseph Stalin made it a part of Georgia.  As for Abkhazia, it was a separate entity historically until Stalin incorporated it into Georgia in 1931.  Now, I don’t expect this president to know this since it would involve reading what he probably considers ancient history, but Bush should know that in the early 1990s after the Soviet Union fell apart there were two wars fought over South Ossetian and Abkhazian independence.  Both peoples sought to rid themselves of the oppressive yolk placed upon them by their Soviet masters.  A ceasefire agreement brought de facto independence to both South Ossetia and Abkhazia.  A peacekeeping force largely made up of Russian troops was left responsible for maintaining order in the territories.

With minor exceptions, order was in place until the night of August 7th 2008.  On that night Georgian peacekeepers turned on their Russian comrades killing 10 and wounding dozens as Georgian president Saakashvili’s army invaded South Ossetia.  According to the international news network Russia Today, the Georgian army began perpetrating a campaign of ethnic cleansing by assassinating clergy, shooting women and children in the streets and throwing grenades into random houses.  These reports came complete with televised pictures of the carnage.  As the Russians reacted to the aggression of the Georgians by coming to the aid of the defenseless South Ossetians, President Bush and his media cronies stirred up old Cold War sentiments in the U.S. by blasting the Russians for disproportionate use of force and imperialistic actions toward Georgia.  In particular, Bush criticized Russian bombing of strategic locations inside Georgia even though this was precisely the same strategy his father pursued against Iraq to extract its army from Kuwait 17 years ago. 

In reality the Russian bombing was measured and incredibly effective.  Saakashvili’s troops withdrew almost immediately from South Ossetia back to Georgia.  It has been speculated that the Georgian president expected military support from the U.S. once he made his move into South Ossetia.  Why else would he have attempted, foolishly, to fight a much bigger and better trained force and then blast the West after hostilities ended for not helping Georgia?  In any event, after Georgian troops departed South Ossetia, Russian troops did pursue them into Georgia to put out any fire that was left in the Georgians to fight another day.  This was a reasonable move given the U.S. did the same thing in Korea and Iraq (the road to Baghdad was a testament to the U.S. killing retreating Iraqi troops on Iraqi soil and the U.S. imposed no fly zone over two-thirds of Iraq after the war speaks for itself). 

Besides ignoring the history behind the crisis and giving the perception through fanning the flames of Cold War feelings that Russia was mostly to blame for the war, the president and his media cohorts have also left the impression that the U.S. alone is providing relief to the victims in the region.  This is not true.  Refugees from South Ossetia have taken shelter in hospitals, schools, and hastily organized camps in North Ossetia and Southern Russia.  Additionally, Russia has pledged $400 million in aid to rebuild the region.  Granted, with Saakashvili still in charge in Georgia probably no Russian money will make its way to Tbilisi. 

This brings us to another interesting aspect of the crisis omitted or denied by the president and his media comrades. Who is the president of Georgia, their ally, Mikhail Saakashvili?  Who is this man that is American educated, fluent in English and slick in front of TV cameras?  Well, many experts on Georgia believe he was the man most responsible for protests in Tbilisi last November because of his refusal to meet with opposition leaders, listen to criticism, and communicate with his people.  You know all things that democratically elected leaders do.  After the street protests fizzled down to several hundred protestors he was the man who dispersed them by employing police truncheons, rubber bullets, and tear gas.  He also pulled the opposition television stations from the airwaves.  Under international pressure, he did call for early elections, but they took place one month after the protests, which gave the opposition party no time to organize, and according to international observers were fraught with vote rigging.  It’s no wonder Bush prefers to divert attention away from Saakashvili and on to the Russians.  It’s allies like that that make some of our enemies look good.

Lastly, there has been at least one incident of blatant dishonesty and one incident of cover-up in the coverage of the war by the U.S. media.  Aleksandr Zhukov, a cameraman from the Russia Al-Yaum channel indicated that footage he shot of wrecked tanks and destroyed buildings in the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali was later used by CNN who then claimed it showed damage done by the Russian military in the Georgian town of Gori.  This is clear dishonesty or at the very least incredibly shoddy journalism.  The cover-up involved Fox News’ Shepard Smith interviewing young American Amanda Kokoava and her aunt who happened to be in Tskhinvali when the Georgians invaded.  As the pair was retelling their firsthand account of the Georgian invasion for the TV audience, old Shep cut them off and went to a commercial break.  After the break, they were cut off again as they attempted to again describe the brutality of the Georgian invasion.  Perhaps Fox News needs to better screen their interviewees in the future?

The bottom line is that it is one thing for a U.S. president to manipulate the facts to suit his policy; it is another thing for the media to help him do it.  Life experience has taught me not to expect too much from this president or really any president for that matter.  The media in a democracy serves a very important role in holding elected officials accountable.  During the Russo-Georgian conflict the U.S. media has let us down by assisting the president in his campaign of disinformation, ignoring the facts and downright lying.  If there is a second Cold War which results from the actions of this president during this conflict, the U.S. media will have to bear a large part of the blame for its complicity in the events leading to it.   

Kenn Jacobine teaches History and English for the American International School of Lusaka, Zambia.  Send him email at lovesliberty@gmail.com.

Several years ago, President Bush told other countries that as far as he was concerned there were two sides to the war on terrorism.  You were either with us in fighting the terrorists or against us.  The president’s parameters were black and white.  After all, how could any civilized nation refuse an opportunity to rid the world of the scourge of terrorism?  Well, Russia was one such country, choosing not to directly support U.S. military action in Afghanistan and U.S. military imperialism in Iraq with troops of her own.  According to Bush, Russia’s noninterventionist stand meant that she was against the U.S. in its war on terror.  This delusional mindset toward Russia is currently responsible for the administration’s posture on the war between Russia and Georgia – a posture that is hypocritical and based on one of those entangling alliances that both Washington and Jefferson warned us about.

From comments made by senior administration officials, the U.S. has clearly taken the side of Georgia in the conflict.  Specifically, the U.S. has been critical of Russia’s use of “overwhelming” military force against Georgia which has included strategic bombers and ballistic missiles.  U.S. officials have also voiced displeasure that Russia has attacked strategic territory near the Georgian capital Tbilisi which is far away from the concentration of the fighting in South Ossetia.  These comments coming from this administration are hypocritical to say the least.

To begin with, Georgia started this conflict by invading its breakaway republic South Ossetia.  Russia’s main justification for getting involved militarily was the killing of 10 Russian peacekeepers as a result of Georgian aggression.  Additionally, many Russian citizens live in South Ossetia and the Russia military intervened to protect their lives and property.  Would the U.S. military not get involved in a place abroad where American citizens and property were threatened?  The invasion of Grenada in the early 1980s comes to mind.  Secondly, when Iraq invaded Kuwait didn’t the United States and its allies use overwhelming military force including strategic bombers and ballistic missiles against Iraq to extricate it from the Gulf nation?  Lastly, wasn’t the initial U.S. military strategy in the first Gulf War to cut off the Iraqi army in Kuwait from command control facilities in Baghdad by …attacking strategic locations in Baghdad which was far from Kuwait?  The Administration’s criticism of Russia’s handling of this conflict is hypocritical given how our government has handled previous conflicts in our history.

Besides hypocrisy, the U.S.’s posture on the war is based upon our country’s entangling alliance with Georgia.  One problem with alliances of course is that sometimes your ally does bad things.  Georgia has done a bad thing.  It has walked away from the negotiating table and preemptively invaded a disputed territory killing foreign soldiers and civilians.  However, because Georgia is at odds with our foe, Russia, and wants to join NATO, the Bush Administration is willing to overlook her aggression.  Further, and here is the crux of the matter, because Georgia is a partner in the war on terror (she has the third largest contingent of troops in Iraq behind the U.S. and Britain) and Russia is not, it is easy for the Administration to pick sides.  Georgia is for us and Russia is not.

The Bush Administration’s position on the Russo-Georgian War is indicative of a foreign policy that is inflexible, archaic, and downright stupid.  It is based on contradictions and an alliance that is not worth preserving.  Hopefully, the U.S. will not assist in transporting Georgian troops in Iraq to the front in South Ossetia as has been suggested by one administration official.  That move would be provocative and threatening to Russia.  But then again what do we expect from a president that has perpetrated an illegal war against a sovereign nation under false pretenses?  What do we expect from a leader that calls other nations the Axis of Evil?  What do we expect from an individual that sees the world in black and white – you are for us or against us?

Kenn Jacobine teaches History and English for the American International School of Lusaka, Zambia.  Send him email at lovesliberty@gmail.com.

There have been several pieces of good news lately relating to 2^nd Amendment rights in the United States.  By now everyone should be aware of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling striking down the 32 year old Washington, D.C. ban on citizens keeping guns in their homes.  Florida has a new law which allows gun owners to transport their legally registered guns to work as long as they keep them locked up in their cars.  There are exceptions to the law – those that work in schools are still prohibited from bringing their firearms onto school grounds.  Lastly, Governor Sonny Perdue of Georgia signed legislation in May that allows the state’s 300,000 concealed weapons permit holders to carry hidden guns on public transit, in state parks and restaurants that serve alcohol.  Congratulations to those political leaders in Florida and Georgia and the 5 justices on the Supreme Court that got it right for a change by supporting the Amendment to the Constitution that ensures all the others.

How does the 2^nd Amendment ensure that the other nine amendments of the Bill of Rights are honored by the federal government?  We consult the Declaration of Independence for that answer:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”

Our Founders knew that historically government as an institution was prone to abusing power and denying natural rights to its own citizens as well as citizens of other countries.  So, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Washington and their brethren built a two tier system to guarantee that the same would not happen with the government they were instituting.  First, Americans would have the ability to “alter” their government through the ballot box.  If that option became unavailable to them they could take up arms and “abolish” it.  Fortunately, in the United States, we have had a history of regular elections and smooth transitions to power.  But, our past is no reason not to be vigilant about protecting 2^nd Amendment rights since a slow steady erosion of gun rights is as dangerous to the health of our republic as a sudden confiscation of the same right.

Besides ensuring the perpetuation of the Bill of Rights, the 2^nd Amendment has a practical purpose – preventing catastrophes.  Let’s face it, the police cannot be everywhere at all times.  Nor would we want them to be.  That is called a police state and would surely result in the loss of our constitutional rights.   So, there are times when the citizenry must take criminal matters into their own hands.  An example would be the courageous passengers that battled the terrorists and brought down their hijacked plane on an empty field in Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001 saving the lives of many.  With more liberal gun carrying laws at the time, the Virginia Tech Massacre of 2007 may have been prevented.  The assailant, Seung-Hui Cho, may have been deterred from making his attack if he knew that he might encounter another gun-slinging student or faculty member.  However, Cho was mentally unstable and probably would have carried out the slaughter anyway.  Can it not be argued that the more than 30 people that were gunned down that day would have had a better chance at survival if at least one person in the vicinity of the tragedy had been packing a piece?  With a totally disarmed population at his mercy, Cho was able to kill many innocents and wound many more before taking his own life.

The mass killing at a Luby’s Cafeteria in Texas is the greatest testament to the practicality of the 2^nd Amendment and liberalizing gun carrying laws in the U.S.  On October 16, 1991, George Jo Hennard stormed the restaurant and gunned down unsuspecting patrons.   As part of the human carnage that day, Suzanna Gratia Hupp lost both of her parents at the hands of the gunman.  Gratia Hupp owned a gun, but kept it in the trunk of her car while she had lunch with her folks.  She was obeying Texas law at the time which prohibited her from carrying a firearm into a public place.  A good shot, Gratia Hupp is confident that had she been allowed to carry her firearm into Luby’s, the lives of many, including her parents, would have been saved.  Again, a defenseless group of people found themselves at the absolute mercy of a madman.  Common sense policy would have given them the ability to defend themselves.

Many will say we no longer live in the Wild West.  It is crazy to allow just anybody to carry a gun anywhere.  This is a reasonable position.  Many states do need to strengthen their vetting procedures for who can and can’t get a gun permit.  Clearly, Cho and Hennard fell through the cracks and should never have been given a permit based on their previous mental history.  Even though businesses are used by the public, they are still private property.  Owners should maintain the right to deny guns on their property if they choose.  As a business owner several years ago, I carried a 9mm pistol for protection at all times.  I was trained to use the gun and could have used it to protect life or property.  Training is important for all gun owners to have.  Even though great care should be taken when giving the state the authority to tell us what to do, perhaps a good compromise in order to get more liberal gun carrying laws nationwide would be to require gun carrying permit applicants to receive training and show proficiency with the gun they intend to carry before they are granted a permit.

Hopefully the easing of restrictions on where gun owners can carry their firearms in Florida and Georgia will become a trend across the U.S.   Most, if not all gun owners realize the immense responsibility that comes with the right to keep and bear arms.  By liberalizing the gun carrying laws the 2^nd Amendment would be respected.  Further, ordinary Americans would be empowered to potentially avert massacres and save lives.  At the very least, liberal gun carrying laws would serve the same purpose as nuclear weapons during the Cold War. A potential assailant would think twice before striking if he knew that at least one member of his target audience might be loaded with equal firepower.   That is called deterrence and it worked for the 44 year long Cold War.  We can assume it will work in preventing crime.

Kenn Jacobine teaches English and History for the American International School of Lusaka, Zambia.  Send him email at lovesliberty@gmail.com.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the quintessential federal government boondoggles.  Created in 1938 by FDR, the two institutions’ function is to buy mortgages and provide guarantees for the same in order to make homeownership more likely for more Americans.  Like many government programs, Fannie and Freddie’s objective is noble, but at the same time inappropriate for government to undertake.  The current subprime crisis accentuates this statement and provides an excellent opportunity for Uncle Sam to get out of the mortgage business since there are substantial reasons for its withdraw.

In the first place, and this should come as no surprise since Washington has meddled in areas prohibited to it by the Constitution for a long time, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are unconstitutional.  The words bank, lending, mortgage, or anything related cannot be found in the Constitution.  James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, fought bitterly on constitutional grounds against incorporation by the Congress of a national bank.  If the Father of our Constitution knew a national bank was unconstitutional then logically mortgage services would also be proscribed by the document.

Another important reason for Uncle Sam’s withdraw from the mortgage business has to do with conflicts of interest.  Even though Fannie and Freddie were originally set up as government sponsored enterprises (GSE), Presidents Johnson and Nixon made them publicly traded companies with authority to sell shares of stock.  The problem is that as a GSE the shareholders of Fannie and Freddie enjoy several big advantages over their competitors – a guaranteed line of credit with the US Treasury, cheaper borrowing costs, lower capital requirements, and an implicit federal guarantee against failure. 

Additionally, Fannie and Freddie have for some time now used taxpayer money to lobby for perks and privileges not afforded to their private sector competitors like exemptions from paying local and state taxes.  If that is not bad enough, Fannie and Freddie lobbyists have infiltrated this year’s presidential campaign.  Twenty or more of John McCain’s fundraisers have lobbied on behalf of Fannie and Freddie.  His campaign manager, Rick Davis served as president of an advocacy group led by Fannie and Freddie that lobbied for the duo against regulation.  Perhaps these contacts explain McCain’s recent remarks and his zeal for using taxpayer money no matter what the cost to keep Fannie and Freddie from failure. 

“Those institutions, Fannie and Freddie, have been responsible for millions of Americans to be able to own their own homes, and they will not fail, we will not allow them to fail … we will do what's necessary to make sure that they continue that function.” 

John McCain, July 2008

The bottom line is that Fannie and Freddie are very adept at using their government status to their advantage.  That is the price to be paid when government is allowed to incorporate a business.

Lastly, the federal government should unload Fannie and Freddie because they are bailout prone.  They have been allowed to play fast and loose with taxpayer money and now face insolvency.  Combined, both institutions own or have guaranteed $5.1 trillion in mortgage debt.  This number is more than half the national debt of $9.5 trillion.  The figure represents more than half of all mortgage debt in the U.S.  With the current subprime crisis, it seems just a matter of time before one or both of these mortgage banks will face liquidity problems.  But, according to Ben Bernanke, neither bank is in danger of failure.  But how does he know that for sure?  No one has ventured any guesses as to when the current credit crunch will be at its bottom.  If neither bank is in any danger then why has there been a government bailout plan developed that includes even more extended lines of credit and gives authority to the government to buy shares in each company?  With $5.1 trillion in mortgage backed securities, even a small percentage of write downs will amount to a lot of money.  As inflation continues to soar, a Fed bailout will benefit Fannie and Freddie’s stockholders at the expense of the rest of us.  How just is this?

What should be done?  I have a suggestion that I am sure will go over well.  All the politicians and their corporate buddies that love Fannie and Freddie so much should pool their resources and purchase the institutions.  They could set up a truly private firm by selling stock and playing by the same rules as their competitors.  Certainly, with so many valuable assets in the control of politicians, selling stock in the new companies will be no problem.  Better yet, the federal government will be out of the mortgage game and the American taxpayer will be liberated from the conflicts of interest, violations of the Constitution, and bailouts.     

Kenn Jacobine teaches History and English for the American International School of Lusaka, Zambia.  Send him email at lovesliberty@gmail.com.

Fear is the tool of policymakers and advocates for many causes in our country.  Whether it is influencing people that electric garage doors kill children or that all cars should have airbags when an issue is brought to the fore in our society, fear is used to convince people that something must be done federally to right the wrong otherwise Western Civilization as we know it will vanish.  The Drug War is no different.  Statements are made by drug warriors to convince Americans that they must be given the authority to fight this crusade otherwise society will face dire consequences.  However, upon closer scrutiny, the claims made are more false then they are true.

Take the assertion that illegal drugs – marijuana, cocaine, and heroin, are big killers in the U.S.  The actual numbers say otherwise.  In a typical year, about 2,200 people die from cocaine related use.  Heroin claims the lives of 2,000 people annually and there has never been a recorded death attributed to marijuana use in the history of the U.S.  Of course, these deaths are related to direct use of the drugs and not inclusive of the violent crime attributed to them because of the Drug War.  Still, the numbers are very low compared to the rhetoric that illegal drugs kill big time.  Further, compare these puny numbers against 440,000 tobacco deaths and 80,000 alcohol fatalities and it is clear from a statist point of view that perhaps the federal government has banned the wrong substances.

Then, there is the misinformation that individuals who use marijuana or cocaine are more prone to violent behavior.  Through various studies alcohol is the only psychosocial substance that has been found to commonly increase aggression in those that consume it.  Think about it, we have all heard about the violent drunk, but has anyone ever heard of a violent stoner?  Violence is linked to illegal drugs primarily through drug deals gone bad, fighting over territory, and property crimes committed to raise drug money.  This is violence not caused by the consumption of illegal drugs, but caused because the drugs are illegal in the first place.  If we ended the War on Drugs then almost all violence related to illegal drugs would disappear.

Lastly, there is the claim that without strong drug laws our society would become a collection of dope fiends and drug addicts.  Well, alcohol is legal and the U.S. has not become a society of drunkards and loafers.  There is evidence that the forbidden fruit theory has had a negative effect on drug use in the U.S.  That is, because drugs are illegal more people use them here.  The World Health Organization conducted a survey of 17 countries and found that the U.S. had the highest rates of marijuana and cocaine use.  42.4 percent of respondents in the U.S. admitted having used marijuana; the results were similar for cocaine with the U.S. leading the world by large margins for both drugs.  By comparison, in the Netherlands, where possessing and using small amounts of pot is legal, only 19.8 percent of respondents have used marijuana.  So, the U.S. which has some of the most punitive drug laws leads in drug users compared to the Netherlands which has a much more lenient approach to drugs.  This seems to refute the drug warriors’ claim that we need tough drug laws to prevent society from becoming overrun by drug users.

The next time politicians and advocates for the Drug War grandstand about more reasons for its existence, Americans need to be cynical and check the facts.  Chances are, like killer electric garage doors and lifesaving airbags, the reasons are just more examples of fear tactics to legitimate their cause.  

Kenn Jacobine teaches History and English for the American International School of Lusaka, Zambia.  Send him email at lovesliberty@gmail.com.

Fear is the tool of policymakers and advocates for many causes in our country.  Whether it is influencing people that electric garage doors kill children or that all cars should have airbags when an issue is brought to the fore in our society, fear is used to convince people that something must be done federally to right the wrong otherwise Western Civilization as we know it will vanish.  The Drug War is no different.  Statements are made by drug warriors to convince Americans that they must be given the authority to fight this crusade otherwise society will face dire consequences.  However, upon closer scrutiny, the claims made are more false then they are true.

Take the assertion that illegal drugs – marijuana, cocaine, and heroin, are big killers in the U.S.  The actual numbers say otherwise.  In a typical year, about 2,200 people die from cocaine related use.  Heroin claims the lives of 2,000 people annually and there has never been a recorded death attributed to marijuana use in the history of the U.S.  Of course, these deaths are related to direct use of the drugs and not inclusive of the violent crime attributed to them because of the Drug War.  Still, the numbers are very low compared to the rhetoric that illegal drugs kill big time.  Further, compare these puny numbers against 440,000 tobacco deaths and 80,000 alcohol fatalities and it is clear from a statist point of view that perhaps the federal government has banned the wrong substances.

Then, there is the misinformation that individuals who use marijuana or cocaine are more prone to violent behavior.  Through various studies alcohol is the only psychosocial substance that has been found to commonly increase aggression in those that consume it.  Think about it, we have all heard about the violent drunk, but has anyone ever heard of a violent stoner?  Violence is linked to illegal drugs primarily through drug deals gone bad, fighting over territory, and property crimes committed to raise drug money.  This is violence not caused by the consumption of illegal drugs, but caused because the drugs are illegal in the first place.  If we ended the War on Drugs then almost all violence related to illegal drugs would disappear.

Lastly, there is the claim that without strong drug laws our society would become a collection of dope fiends and drug addicts.  Well, alcohol is legal and the U.S. has not become a society of drunkards and loafers.  There is evidence that the forbidden fruit theory has had a negative effect on drug use in the U.S.  That is, because drugs are illegal more people use them here.  The World Health Organization conducted a survey of 17 countries and found that the U.S. had the highest rates of marijuana and cocaine use.  42.4 percent of respondents in the U.S. admitted having used marijuana; the results were similar for cocaine with the U.S. leading the world by large margins for both drugs.  By comparison, in the Netherlands, where possessing and using small amounts of pot is legal, only 19.8 percent of respondents have used marijuana.  So, the U.S. which has some of the most punitive drug laws leads in drug users compared to the Netherlands which has a much more lenient approach to drugs.  This seems to refute the drug warriors’ claim that we need tough drug laws to prevent society from becoming overrun by drug users.

The next time politicians and advocates for the Drug War grandstand about more reasons for its existence, Americans need to be cynical and check the facts.  Chances are, like killer electric garage doors and lifesaving airbags, the reasons are just more examples of fear tactics to legitimate their cause.  

Kenn Jacobine teaches History and English for the American International School of Lusaka, Zambia.  Send him email at lovesliberty@gmail.com.

Kudos to Congressional Republicans for defending capitalism and rejecting central economic planning.  On Tuesday, Senate Republicans denied their Democratic colleagues the 60 votes needed to end debate and pass a windfall oil profits bill.  The bill would have put a 25 percent tax (windfall oil profits tax) on profits over what would be determined "reasonable" when compared to profits several years ago.  It would have regulated energy futures traders in order to limit market speculation.  It would have made price gouging of oil and gas a federal crime during a declared energy emergency by the president.  Lastly, it would have given the Justice Department authority to bring charges of price fixing against countries that belong to the OPEC oil cartel.  The measure was meant to address and punish those that are responsible for high prices at the pump – namely big oil companies, speculators and oil producing countries.  Of course, these Washington contrived villains are not ultimately responsible for high gas prices.  Even if they were, the measure would not have solved the problem.  It would only have made it worst.

It is amazing what short memories proponents of a windfall profits tax have.  In 1980, Jimmy Carter enacted one and from 1980 to 1988 (the last year of the tax) there was a 3 to 6 percent decrease in domestic oil production.  This happened because the tax increased the marginal cost of production, thereby reducing the quantity of gasoline produced.  A decrease in gas supplies without a corresponding decline in demand means even higher prices at the pump.  In a best case scenario, if the tax had been enacted oil companies would pass the tax expense on to consumers in the form of higher prices and we wouldn’t have to wait in long lines to fill up or be subject to rationing.

Windfall profit taxes are also bad because 41 percent of oil company stocks valued at over $267 billion are currently held in various forms of pension plans and retirement accounts.  The tax would cause the values of these accounts to dwindle causing negative effects on national savings and our senior population.  Rest assured, while the Democrats believe a windfall profits tax is the right thing to do, the measure’s vengeance would have been mostly felt by the American consumer.

The Democratic bill would have also required traders to put up more collateral in the energy futures markets and would have opened the way for federal regulation of traders who are based in the United States but use foreign trading platforms.  The Democratic leadership in Congress clearly believes that a group of speculators have gotten together all of a sudden to conspire to inflate the price of oil futures in order to reap huge gains at the expense of the rest of us.  Talk about conspiracy theories.  This belief ignores the relationship the current value of our dollar has with oil prices.  The rise in oil futures is a direct result of investors trading debased dollars for a commodity that has had, has, and will have into the future enormous value because of its necessity for the world economy.  If the government attempts to control the price of oil through regulation of futures trading, it potentially will have the same result that price controls have had in other sectors of the economy – a shortage of the product because the profit motive for producers is either limited or eliminated altogether.  Once again the opposite effect of what Congress is trying to accomplish will happen.  The price of gas will increase because Congress’s policy will cause a decrease in supply.

Two other provisions of the bill would have made domestic gasoline price gouging a federal crime and given the Justice Department the authority to sue countries in the OPEC oil cartel that price fix.  Common sense indicates that when the raw material that goes into a finished product increases significantly in price, the price of the finished product will also increase significantly.  There is no doubt that oil companies make large profits, but that profit is needed by them to carry out exploration, excavation, and refining of their product.  As to the Justice Department having the authority to sue another country, this is just indicative of how arrogant and wacky supporters of the bill have become.

In essence, the Democratic windfall profits bill was nothing more than election year pandering.  It was an attempt to show the electorate that Democrats are on their side when it comes to dealing with bad guys – oil companies, speculators, and OPEC.  However, not only would the bill have exasperated the current energy crisis by adding costs to oil production, depleting national savings, and causing gasoline shortages, it was misdirected in terms of who is ultimately to blame for high gas prices.

The primary culprit responsible for high oil prices are the monetary central planners at the Federal Reserve Bank.  According to Ron Paul, the Fed has roughly tripled the amount of dollars and credit in circulation since 1990.  It has added 4 trillion dollars to the money supply in the last 3 years alone.  This has caused a serious devaluation of the dollar.  The Kwacha, which is the Zambian currency, has gained 33% against the dollar in 3 years.  Zambia is a much poorer country than the U.S. and its money is on the rise against our greenback.  Because the dollar is the international currency of exchange for oil, the debasement of the dollar is responsible for the high price of oil.  It is also easy to understand why investors (speculators) are dumping dollars in favor of commodities, specifically oil.  So while the politicians in Washington and their friends in the media continue their campaign of blaming greedy business men, unscrupulous investors, and shady foreigners for our gas woes, remember that a rise in prices almost always is caused by too much money chasing too few goods.  The supply of oil is fine; it is the too much money part that Congress needs to deal with.

Kenn Jacobine teaches History and English for the American International School of Lusaka, Zambia.  Send him email at lovesliberty@gmail.com.

The cost of health care in the United States is a perennial issue in presidential election campaigns.  Little wonder since money spent on it continues to rise year after year.  In 1960 the United States spent just 5.2 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care.  By 2007, total spending on health care was $2.3 trillion.  This figure represented 16 percent of the GDP.  While costs continue to rise, 47 million Americans are still left uninsured.  This is quite a quandary – ever rising costs that still do not meet total needs.

What is at the heart of this problem?  The answer is government central planning.  As government has gotten more involved in health care since 1960 the cost of it has risen dramatically.  Naturally, this presidential election year is no different than recent years with the two major candidates offering more government solutions to our health care crisis.  Whether it is tax credits, coordinated care, guaranteed access plans or a National Health Insurance Exchange of public and private plans for the uninsured, McCain and Obama are doing what all politicians do: propose new government policies to fix the problems caused by the previous policies.  Their proposals will not reduce costs, but merely exacerbate the problem further.  To realistically address the health care crisis in the U.S. we need to eliminate the government’s stranglehold over the industry by ensuring greater competition, eliminating regulation and allowing consumers to spend their own health care dollars.

In all industries, competition is the key to lower costs and consumer satisfaction.  The healthcare industry is no exception. To ensure greater competition in health care, providers should be allowed to offer their services on the open market without government interference.  Government licensure should be abolished so consumers could be free to pick and choose which provider best satisfies their need.  With the limiting restraints of government gone, more providers would enter the market and competition between them would be keen.  New providers could offer alternative healing programs.  A multi-tier system could develop in which common maladies would be treated by less expensive, minimally trained providers.  For serious cases, specialists would receive referrals from the lower tier.  In Zambia, I have been treated by doctors who would not be eligible for licensure in the U.S. because their medical training, received in Zambia, does not meet U.S. standards.  They have treated me for the flu, strep throat, and rashes with successful results.  If my condition was more serious I would seek the help of a specialist.  In this system, low cost providers would heal minor afflictions, thereby lowering costs, and all providers, doctors, physician’s assistants, nurse practitioners and the like would  stay up to date with the latest medical techniques and provide the very best service to all of their patients in order to keep them as clients. 

Now, under the above described system, many folks would ask, how can we be sure medical professionals would be qualified to treat patients?  Certainly, medical schools would still provide top quality training for practitioners otherwise their enrollments would decline causing economic stress to the larger university.  Consumer groups would develop rating systems for medical providers to inform the public.  Lastly, medical associations would form to support health care providers with training and forums for collaboration between professionals.  We live in an age where information is plentiful and reliable.  If there is a need in society the internet and mass media will supply ample resources to make an informed decision on how to satisfy it.  It is time we harness the enormous power of the free market to provide more competition in health care in order to lower costs and improve the quality of the care.

Along with ending state licensure, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should be abolished.  In 1962, President Kennedy signed into law amendments to federal drug laws that required pharmaceutical companies to prove the effectiveness of their products to the FDA before they could be marketed in the U.S.  Of course, the new requirements did not make our drugs risk free as was their intention.  Instead, over the years, ever longer and more complicated approval processes were put into place.  These longer approval processes have kept much needed drugs for cancer, high blood pressure, cholesterol, and heart attacks off the market causing patients to suffer and even die.  Additionally, the more complicated and costly approval processes have eliminated small companies from entering the market, thereby decreasing competition and raising costs.  By eliminating the FDA, large pharmaceutical firms would not be able to restrain competition against them by hiding behind a $2 billion regulatory bureaucracy.  Consumers would be the biggest beneficiaries from the move.

Again, many would ask, how would we know if our drugs were safe or not?  The answer is the same as the one for ending licensure.  Private testing organizations like the Underwriters Laboratories would spring up to test drugs for safety and effectiveness.  Also, pharmaceutical companies would have incentives to produce drugs and medical equipment that were safe lest they would face civil or criminal lawsuits.

Besides a lack of competition and heavy regulation a third cause of high costs in health care is the fact that third party payers (insurance companies and government) pay between 70 and 80 cents of every health care dollar.  This condition makes price comparison shopping unnecessary.  If some other institution is footing more than 70 percent of a bill, the consumer has little incentive to shop for the best deal. 

Enacting Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) is a proper response to the third party payer problem.  MSAs would bring down costs by making consumers more cost conscious.  Here is how they work: Employers deposit a portion of the money they currently spend on your health insurance into an MSA, up to $1,400 for an individual (or $3,375 for a family).  The remainder of the money is used to buy a catastrophic policy that covers expenses after meeting a deductible.  You use your $1400 to pay for medical expenses directly.  The incentive is for you, the consumer, to lower your medical costs because the proceeds leftover from the $1400 at the end of each year is kept by you in a tax deferred account.  By requiring all consumers to meet a budget the cost of aggregate health care would decrease.

At this very moment, proposals in Washington to solve our health care crisis only include more government intervention.  The key to solving the problem is less government, not more.  By ending state licensure, abolishing the FDA and enacting MSAs, health care cost will come down allowing many more Americans the ability to get coverage.  Perhaps then, health care as a perennial presidential election campaign issue will be no more.  Then we can focus on different issues to tackle.

Part IV will deal with energy.

Kenn Jacobine teaches History and English for the American International School of Lusaka, Zambia.  Send him email at lovesliberty@gmail.com.

With good reason, the economy is the number one issue on voters’ minds this presidential election cycle.  After all, currently, unemployment and prices are both rising and the things we own, like houses, are worth less with each passing day.  Of course, the two major party nominees for president are offering their remedies for combating the most current economic difficulties afflicting our nation.  Both John McCain and Barack Obama are offering essentially the same pabulum that is offered up every four years by Republicans and Democrats seeking the presidency.  They would tinker with the tax code, adjust federal spending, fix social security, cure the health care crisis, lower oil prices, and ease the burden on homeowners.  What’s amazing is that in all these years and with all the resources at their disposal, Republicans and Democrats have not learned that planned economies do not work.

Let’s take social security for instance.  In the first place, I am still looking for a constitutional justification for the federal government to be in the business of retirement annuities.  That aside, social security is nothing more than a Ponzi Scheme.  In 1919, Charles Ponzi persuaded investors to send him money with the guarantee that he could double or even triple their investment by speculating in international postal reply coupons.  However, his plan simply was to pay off previous investors with the money received from current investors.  When he could no longer persuade new investors to send him money the well ran dry causing many to lose the money they sent him.  Ponzi was caught, jailed for several years and eventually deported back to his native Italy for his fraud.  Social Security is essentially the same scheme.  It relies on an ample pool of current workers/contributors to pay off those that contributed previously during their working lives.  In 1950 there were 16 workers for every retired person.  Today there are 3.3 workers for every retired person.  It is only a matter of time until the system meets the same fate as Ponzi’s and collapses.  

Of course, neither McCain nor Obama are calling for an end to social security.  They prefer to fix the system instead.  To cover the expected long-term shortfall of the system (expected to be in the trillions of dollars), McCain wants to cut benefits rather than raise taxes.  How can he do that?  Isn’t there a contractual agreement between the social security trust fund and retirees about how much they get paid each month?  The answer is no.  Retirees are at the mercy of politicians for their monthly payments unlike private annuity programs and furthermore, there really is no such thing as a social security trust fund since those same politicians have been raiding it for years in an attempt to meet current expenses of the general federal budget.

On the other hand, Barack Obama, doesn’t favor increasing the retirement age or cutting benefits.  Instead, he would increase the amount of payroll tax that very high-income workers pay by subjecting more of their income to the payroll tax.  Therefore, his solution is to throw more money at the problem.  Given the lousy economy he will inherit if elected president, this policy will only cause more economic hardship.

What we really need from McCain and Obama is a free market approach not an endorsement of continuing government planning in regards to retirement accounts.  They should be proposing that Social Security be phased out as quickly as we can dismantle our worldwide military empire, sell most federal lands, and abolish all federal government departments that do not meet constitutional muster.  With the money saved by these liquidations, current and some future recipients of social security can be paid off.  With no social security tax to pay, younger folks would realize about a 6% income increase which they could save for retirement in a real investment with real returns.  Businesses would realize the same 6% savings which can be passed along to stockholders many of which would be saving for their retirement. 

By ending government central planning in retirement accounts, we would never again be subject to the same tired proposals every four years to perpetuate a system that if done by a private citizen would get them jail time.  Economic central planning, whether it was/is the Soviet Union, Maoist China or Social Security, has proven unworkable.  McCain and Obama should practice “straight talk” and give America “Change We Can Believe In” when it comes to Social Security.  Whichever candidate is elected president should send Social Security to the same scrap heap containing the broken promises of the Soviet Union and Maoist China.

Part II will look at aid to homeowners.

Kenn Jacobine teaches History and English for the American International School of Lusaka, Zambia.  Send him email at lovesliberty@gmail.com.

There is a war taking place at this moment on the U.S. border with Mexico.  No, the Mexicans have not invaded Texas in an effort to take back the territory lost in a previous conflict with Uncle Sam.  This time Mexican troops are fighting a different foe on behalf of their former adversaries.  This military conflict is sure to either hand Mexico a Vietnam like defeat or worst, just never end.  I am speaking of course about the War on Drugs, the international version.

Since Mexican president Felipe Calderon declared an all out war on drug cartels in his country in December 2006, there have been 4,152 drug-related murders in Mexico.  Homicides related to the drug war are up 47 percent just this year.  In May alone, almost 500 killings could be attributed to the government’s crackdown.  It is not just the “bad guys” that are dying.  Innocent bystanders who are at the wrong place at the wrong time are being mowed down as well as police, military, and government officials.  While the number of murders in the central regions of Mexico have decreased, there has been an increase in slaughters along the Texas border with Mexico in towns like Ciudad Juarez across the Rio Grande from El Paso.  These slaughters are the result of the Mexican government’s efforts to stop drug smuggling into the U.S. 

Now, it is one thing for a bad policy to have negative effects on the country that instituted it. It is another thing for that policy to wreak havoc on countries that frankly have more important things to do then hunt people that have been made hardened criminals by that very policy.  Mexico, like most nations in the world, is a developing country.  These countries can’t really afford to police traffic violators let alone well-armed gangsters.  It is easy to discuss throwing around billions of dollars in the U.S.  A few billion is a drop in the bucket in relation to our gross domestic product.  Additionally, the Federal Reserve can print that up with very few people realizing the inflationary consequences of the act.  However, for Mexico and other countries like her, billions of dollars is real money – usually extracted through direct taxes or the printing of new currency with much higher resulting inflation than is experienced in the U.S. 

The bottom line is Mexico needs every dollar it has to develop infrastructure to build a stronger economy.  Instead of the Mexican government spending billions of dollars on a hopeless cause (the Drug War), that money could be better spent by entrepreneurs to expand plants or build new ones.  The resulting expanded jobs market in Mexico would divert Mexicans away from drug trafficking, alleviate our immigration problem, boost the Mexican economy, providing political stability on our southern border and lastly increase Mexico’s gross domestic product making her a more worthy trading partner.

Additionally, by ending the War on Drugs, countries that produce certain drugs like marijuana and cocaine could sell these substances to the pharmaceutical industry to manufacture pain killers and other medications.  This trade would provide an additional boon to the economies of developing nations.

In this presidential election year, Americans need to ask how long this endless war will continue.  After all, it has been waged in earnest for thirty-six years at a cost of over a trillion dollars and with the loss of countless lives.  It would be nice if foreign leaders like Felipe Calderon were to act in the best interest of their own countries and tell Washington what it can do with its senseless crusade.  But these leaders are few and far between and are at risk of direct U.S. military action (remember Manuel Noriega).  So, the onus rightly falls on the American voter to reverse the drug policy of the U.S. government.  You would think a war on our southern border would grab their attention on this issue.  Who would they vote for to solve the problem anyway - most of the “mainstream” candidates for Congress and both “mainstream” candidates for president support the War.  Here’s hoping the Mexican war does not spread into Texas and we see a non-mainstream vote in November.       

Kenn Jacobine teaches History and English for the American International School of Lusaka, Zambia.  Send him email at lovesliberty@gmail.com.

Young Americans beware, Uncle Sam may ask you to join him soon on a worldwide adventure to exotic places to see fascinating sights and to meet interesting people and kill them or be killed by them.  This week as Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen were testifying before the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee, its chairman, Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), asked the question he said no one wants to ask:  “Is the cost of maintaining an all-volunteer force becoming unsustainable and, secondly, do we need to consider reinstituting the draft."  As a stunned audience gasped for air, Gates indicated that the escalating costs of maintaining an all volunteer armed forces were worth it.  Mullen was not so hopeful.  The exchange brought out in the open an issue that has been ignored by politicians this election year - military conscription.

Why would politicians want to discuss an issue in public as controversial and loathsome as the draft in any year let alone one in which a new congress and president will be chosen?  Inouye’s reference that no one wants to ask about the draft on Capital Hill can be construed as an admission that he has had discussions in private with other members of Congress to reinstitute the draft.  In public, the two major presidential contenders, Barack Obama and John McCain, have also steered clear of this political hot potato in their speeches and pronouncements.  However, verbiage on both men’s official campaign websites raises troubling questions about their position on converting the all volunteer military into a conscripted one.

While both men never mention the word draft or anything related to it, they both directly state that the U.S. military must be enlarged.  Obama’s site states, “We have learned from Iraq that our military needs more men and women in uniform to reduce the strain on our active force. Obama will increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.”  These are strange words from a candidate that has repeatedly pledged to withdraw troops from Iraq.  If under Obama, we would withdraw troops from Iraq, why do we need more?  Additionally, how is the increase going to be achieved?  The site does not specify.  Will Congress and President Obama provide more inducements by way of higher pay and better benefits for troops to reenlist and potential recruits to sign-up?  Or are we looking at a draft?

John McCain’s site, while also avoiding the use of the word draft or anything close to it, is much more vociferous about the need to “enlarge” our military force.  The national security section of his site states:  “The most important weapons in the U.S. arsenal are the men and women of American armed forces. John McCain believes we must enlarge the size of our armed forces to meet new challenges to our security. For too long, we have asked too much of too few - with the result that many service personnel are on their second, third and even fourth tours of duty in Afghanistan and Iraq. There can be no higher defense priority than the proper compensation, training, and equipping of our troops”.  Does proper compensation, training, and equipping our troops apply to those few that we have asked so much of or does McCain want to use these benefits to induce new recruits to sign up? The statement is not totally clear.

The section goes on to address how our overseas security interests need to be handled, “John McCain believes that the answer to these challenges is not to roll back our overseas commitments. The size and composition of our armed forces must be matched to our nation's defense requirements. As requirements expand in the global war on terrorism so must our Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard be reconfigured to meet these new challenges. John McCain thinks it is especially important to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps to defend against the threats we face today”.  Again, it is stressed that the U.S. military must be enlarged, but no specifics on how to accomplish that are given.

Rest assured that politicians of both major parties have been talking about the draft in private given their thirst for worldwide military adventure and a declining recruitment and retention rate of our voluntary force.  Call me cynical or even paranoid, but the draft is a big enough issue to demand straight answers from our leaders.  With a draft, Washington would not be limited by personnel concerns when considering military adventures around the globe.  The military would be expanded, thus increasing federal outlays for defense and further exasperating the national debt.  Most importantly, the draft would be a violation of the Constitutional rights of those drafted.  Specifically, the draft violates the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition against involuntary servitude and the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of life and liberty without due process of law.

Senator Inouye’s question should incite the electorate, especially those members between the ages of 18 and 25, to question the political establishment on their individual positions on the draft.  It is one thing to have been denied a debate this presidential campaign season on whether the U.S. should or even can continue to support a worldwide empire?  It is another thing to be denied a debate on who will shoulder the burden of that worldwide empire?

Kenn Jacobine teaches History and English for the American International School of Lusaka, Zambia.  Send him email at lovesliberty@gmail.com.

Like many courts nationwide, the California Supreme Court legislated from the bench on Thursday.  In a 4-3 ruling, the Republican-dominated court (yes, a Republican dominated court making law), struck down state laws against same-sex marriage saying that civil unions which are allowed in California do not provide enough rights and benefits of marriage to same-sex partnerships.  The ruling is reminiscent of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1954 law-making decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, where the Court ruled that separate but equal schools for the nation’s black children were a nice attempt at equal opportunity, but not quite nice enough.  Of course, before the ink was even dry on the California high court’s decision, social conservative groups were planning to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case and propose a constitutional amendment to the California State Constitution outlawing same-sex marriages.  Seems to me that instead of questioning whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, the real question we should be asking is why the government is involved in the institution of marriage in the first place?

Social conservatives would argue that government needs to be in the business of protecting the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman because society needs protection from deviant behavior.  In particular, children must be shielded from immoral conduct, lest the moral fabric of our society will deteriorate and American Civilization as we know it will crumble and fall.  They also would argue that marriage has always been between a man and a woman.  Look at the Bible for guidance on this one.  On those occasions where same-sex relationships took place, God sent his wrath not only upon the evil doers, but the whole society (see Sodom and Gomorrah) for letting it happen.  This is proof to many social conservatives that God abhors homosexuality and will destroy the society that sanctions it. 

First of all, homosexuality will not cause the downfall of American Civilization.  Unless we get things under control, the inflation of the welfare/warfare state will be responsible for that.  Secondly, there have always been homosexuals in the U.S.  Many homosexual couples live together and go out in public together.  How will allowing them to marry really change anything?  It is not like same-sex marriage will allow homosexuals to have sex in public.  Is it right to restrict the freedom of homosexuals because some people do not want their children to be exposed to their lifestyle?  In a free society, if parents are homophobic, they could move to shelter their children from homosexual behavior just like they could move to protect their kids from inferior schools or paroled child molesters.

As to the Biblical argument against same-sex marriages, most Americans do not interpret the Bible literally.  We are a pluralistic society with many different views on sexuality and morality.  If narrow religious beliefs were allowed to dictate policy in America, what would make the U.S. different from an Islamic republic?  If I believe drinking alcohol and smoking tobacco are immoral and want to safeguard my children from these practices, do I have the right to use government to restrict my next door neighbor’s right to partake of these substances in their own home?  It is the right of social conservatives to not indulge personally in practices they consider immoral, but it is not their right to use government force to restrict the choice of others.  

The bottom line is this:  the government has no right being in the business of determining who can marry whom.  Why do you need a license to marry, but not to have children?  Are children not a larger and more complicated responsibility because they are totally dependent on their parents, unlike spouses who are self-sustaining adults?  Like child rearing, marriage is a private matter and it should be privatized – it should be formed by a document similar to a business contract between the two individuals involved. The only time government involvement would be warranted would be when one of the marriage principles asked it to adjudicate the terms of the marriage contract. Private marriages would eliminate all of the political issues surrounding same-sex marriage – issues like whether other states must honor a same-sex marriage granted in another state (full faith and credit clause of the Constitution), divorce rights, dividing assets, child custody, and next of kin status.  All of these issues could be addressed in the marriage contract.  It is true that companies could deny workers the same benefits received by workers in a heterosexual marriage, but they would run the risk of losing top quality applicants to fill important positions.  Otherwise same-sex couples could bid for benefits outside of their employment and negotiate higher salaries to cover the additional costs. 

At the end of the day, making marriage a totally private endeavor would eliminate a political issue that divides our country.   It would also free up time and resources to confront the really important issues facing America – war, the devalued dollar, and the erosion of our civil rights.  Imagine a presidential election campaign this year where vital issues were honestly debated by the candidates instead of fringe issues pertaining to who should be allowed to love whom.    

Kenn Jacobine teaches History and English for the American International School of Lusaka, Zambia.  Send him email at lovesliberty@gmail.com.

In 1990, navy admiral John Stufflebeem, as part of an eight month ongoing extra-marital affair, had sex in the White House with a federal employee.  When questioned by navy investigators about the impropriety, Stufflebeem’s response was “I did not have sex with this women”.  When the report was submitted to Pentagon officials in March, Rear Admiral John Stufflebeem was demoted and fired from his post as director of the Navy staff.  On April 18, he was convicted of making false statements to investigators and allowed to “retire” from the navy.

Does the above story seem vaguely familiar?  Did we not have a president in the same decade that had an extra-marital affair with a government intern in the White House and then lie about it (“I did not have sex with that women, Ms. Lewinski”)?  The difference between the two stories is that the president harmed someone legally by perjuring himself under oath (denying extra-marital sex with Lewinski refuted Paula Jones’ contention that Clinton had a track record of womanizing thus hurting her civil suit against the President).  The other difference of course is that while Stufflebeem lost his position and was eventually dismissed from the navy, the President didn’t lose his job or face any criminal prosecution for lying under oath.

Presidential immunity from prosecution was certainly not birthed by Bill Clinton.  For that conception we go back to that beacon of presidential morality and paranoia, Richard Nixon.  Nixon’s crime was obstruction of justice in the Watergate Affair.  If he hadn’t resigned he most certainly would have been impeached and probably removed from office.  However, unlike others in his administration, he didn’t face criminal prosecution for his part in the scandal because Gerald Ford issued him a presidential pardon.

At the time of the pardon, Ford reasoned that the country had suffered enough from Watergate thus distracting it from pressing issues and a long criminal trial for Nixon would make that suffering linger thereby further damaging the country.  Historians debate the merits of this thinking.  Some argue that the ultimate effect of the pardon was to give future presidents confidence that they too would be immune from prosecution for wrongdoing based on Ford’s reasoning.

Perhaps, it was this confidence that motivated our current president to make 259 false statements about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein having links to al-Qaeda in speeches and interviews in the two years leading up to the war with Iraq.  According to the Center for Public Integrity, the President’s mistruths “were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses”.  Lying to persuade the country to go to war would have to fall under the impeachable offenses of “high crimes and misdemeanors”. But, because the Congress and media either don’t care or do not want to hurt the war effort and therefore the country, Bush will get away with his deceit.  

As John Stufflebeem’s saga proves, there are consequences to bad actions – that is at least for Americans who aren’t president.  Those that sit in that chair seem shielded from the consequences of their actions because it would hurt the country as well.  The problem is that succeeding presidents seem to keep outdoing those that come before them in the size of their crime.  Nixon covered up a second rate burglary of a hotel room.  Clinton denied a woman her day in court by lying under oath.  Bush’s lies have led to the loss of nearly four thousand American lives and over one million Iraqi lives.  God help us if this upward trend continues. 

Resource:                                                              

The center for Public Integrity:  http://www.publicintegrity.org

Kenn Jacobine teaches History and English for the American International School of Lusaka, Zambia.  Send him email at lovesliberty@gmail.com.

Sure enough, the politicians are at it again.  This week cries went out from presidential candidates to Congressional leaders that something must be done to alleviate the ill effects of high gas prices on the economy.  Of course, instead of being honest and considering what Washington has done to create the problem, the politicians are focusing on oil companies and a gimmick.

The gimmick was originally proposed by Republican presidential candidate John McCain and usurped as her own idea by Hillary Clinton.  The proposal is to temporarily suspend the federal gas tax during the high travel months of June, July, and August.  The concept behind it is to give consumers a break by lowering the price of gas per gallon by eighteen cents.  For every ten gallons purchased, Americans would save $1.80.  This savings then would allow them to purchase Big Gulps and snack treats, thus providing a boom to the convenience store industry.  In all seriousness, the proposal is an election year gimmick – a shell game if you will.  The minimal relief that consumers will experience will be more than offset by the inflation caused by the Federal Reserve printing additional dollars to make up for the gas tax shortfall estimated at twelve billion dollars for the three months.  So while politicians will take credit for “helping” consumers in their time of need by providing “cheaper gas” this summer they won’t mention the hidden tax they are imposing on us through the Fed’s inflationary printing of money.

Then there is the more direct focus on oil companies with talk of reenacting our old friend the windfall profits tax (WPT).  Jimmy Carter imposed this tax on oil companies starting in 1980 and it lasted until 1988.  Carterite candidates Clinton and Obama want to reenact it today to get oil companies to pay their “fair share” and help those hurt by economic hard times.  The WPT was and is a tax on business entities that experience both “abnormally high and unanticipated profits”.  Other than who decides what “abnormally high and unanticipated profits” are, there are two other problems with the tax scheme.  First, forty-one percent of oil company stocks valued at over $267 billion are currently held in various forms of pension plans and retirement accounts.  As dividends and the share price of oil stocks decrease because of the WPT will Washington implement another program to help retired Americans with the losses or is it believed that they also need to pay their “fair share” to support the less fortunate?

Secondly, as Ronald Reagan use to say, “When you tax something, you get less of it”.  According to the Congressional Research Service, the 1980 windfall profits tax reduced U.S. domestic oil production by three to six percent.  This happened because the tax increased the marginal cost of production, thereby reducing the quantity of gasoline produced.  Cutbacks in domestic production now will only worsen the price situation.  This, of course, will give Washington another opportunity to legislate and help us again.

So where do we go from here?  What is a constitutionally proper course of action for Washington to pursue in dealing with the current high price of fuel?  First of all, the U.S. should completely pull out of Iraq.  By pulling out of Iraq, we lessen the possibility of a wider Middle East war (e.g. Iran and Syria) and probably lower violence in Iraq because al Quada and Iran will not have the Americans to fight.  These developments will calm speculators and stabilize the price of oil.

Next, Congress should move to abolish the Federal Reserve.  According to Ron Paul, the Fed has roughly tripled the amount of dollars and credit in circulation since 1990.  Because oil is priced in dollars worldwide, by looking at the current price of a barrel of crude one can plainly see the damage done by the Fed’s inflationary policies.  The high price of oil is directly related to the low value of the dollar.  In other words, it takes more dollars to buy the same amount of gas than it did in 1990.  Question is: why are the politicians ignoring this issue and proposing a phony gas tax holiday and a harmful to the middle class windfall profits tax?

The bottom line is that we have a better chance of seeing lower gas prices by eliminating speculation, uncertainty, and the political whims of a central bank then we do through fake government gimmicks and schemes.  Contrary to popular belief, Americans are not entitled by birth to cheap gas.  If we had a true free market and the price of gas was still high, then nature would be telling us something – “supply is low and endangering your environment, so maybe you should use the genius of your species, you know the one you have always used in the past to progress and survive to come up with a new technology to make life happen”.

Kenn Jacobine teaches History and English for the American International School of Lusaka, Zambia.  Send him email at lovesliberty@gmail.com.