Home  Top Stories  Sports  Entertainment  Health News  Business  Personal Finance 
Real Estate  Business Finance  Insurance  Consulting 
Tax News  Forum


 

Writers






 


Featured Articles







BUSINESS



 


 



Commentary

 

American government too important to serve Americans

February 21st 2006

American government too important to serve Americans

President Bush

It seems that the next imperative for freeing the world of tyranny, according to experts in the Bush administration and their supporters, is intimidating Iran from developing any nuclear technology. Economic and military strategies are devoted to dissuade Iran's government from developing nuclear abilities that can defend or serve its citizens. Explanations for how Iran poses such a threat to the safety of the world's indispensable nation, however, are not being developed.

Is it unreasonable or unpatriotic to ponder how a land locked nation of 93 million people with no navy, no long range air force, no intercontinental ballistic missile systems or heavy industrial capabilities can be a threat to the safety of a nation of 300 million citizens half a world away that boasts of all the aforementioned military and industrial resources?

 
 
Comment on this article at our Forum

Submit your own article

  RSS Feed to our content

  RSS Feeds to our Commentary News

Add to Google Add to My AOL
Add to My Yahoo! Subscribe with Pluck RSS reader
Subscribe in NewsGator Online
Add this feed to Your C-Net

No doubt supporters of America's War Against International Terrorism can respond to this puzzlement with suggestions that terrorist will sneak some horrible biologic or nuclear device into American borders that can destroy the nation's most important cities and kill millions in the process. Doing so, though, will not lead to conquering this nation and will only help to reinvigorate popular opinion to supporting the government's internationalist agenda. Furthermore, the perceived threat could be diminished with stricter immigration, international shipping and travel policies. On the other hand, say advocates of America's involvement in the global economy, such measures would damage America's financial stability and influence.

Consequently, the only wise choice for America is to use its power to coerce Iran's government into compliance with the type of economy and political policies that the Bush Administration endorses to provide freedom to all Iranians. To those who have the wherewithal to guide public policy, the financial costs or social consequences to American families is not nearly as important to the future of the country as is assuring that the nations of the Mideast operate according to the standards of America's federal government. In fact assuring that people the world over experience financial growth and professional opportunities seems to be more important to the future of America than preserving the same for Americans.

The theme that America's economy is made stronger when it serves the interests of other countries was investigated recently by Paul Craig Roberts in Their Own Economic Reality (VDARE.com, Feb. 15). Roberts cited a report by the National Association of Manufacturers, which supports outsourcing American jobs to lower wage labor markets, that declared, "Funds provided for foreign- performed R&D have grown by almost 73 percent between 1999 and 2003, with a 36 percent increase in the number of firms funding foreign R&D." Roberts pointed out that what this means is, "US industry is still investing in R&D after all; it is just not hiring Americans to do the R&D...US manufacturers still make things, only less and less in America with American labor...US manufacturers still hire engineers, only they are foreign ones, not American ones...In other words, everything is fine for US manufacturers. It is just their former American work force that is in the doldrums."

Such is the state of American capitalism. Capitalism, after all, lays the foundation for American freedom, but to expect American capitalists to risk their capital on the American work force would cut into profits and, hence, damage the strength and stability of American capitalism. In other words, to expect American capitalists to contribute to the financial stability of American workers is, well, unpatriotic and maybe even treasonous (it certainly isn't conservative and, perhaps, borders on communistic) when held in context of the global economy.

Ron Paul, Republican Representative from Texas, in a speech to the House on February 15, titled, "The End of Dollar Hegemony," explained to his peers that, since Richard Nixon closed the "gold window" on American currency in 1971, "...The world was embarking on something new and mind-boggling, elite money managers, with especially strong support from US authorities, struck an agreement with OPEC to price oil in US dollars exclusively for all worldwide transactions. This gave the dollar a special place among world currencies and in essence 'backed' the dollar with oil. In return, the US promised to protect the various oil-rich kingdoms in the Persian Gulf against threat of invasion or domestic coup."

 

According to Paul, "The agreement with OPEC in the 1970s to price oil in dollars has provided tremendous artificial strength to the dollar as the preeminent reserve currency. This has created a universal demand for the dollar, and soaks up the huge number of new dollars generated each year. Last year alone M3 increased over $700 billion. The artificial demand for our dollar, along with our military might, places us in the unique position to 'rule' the world without productive work or savings, and without limits on consumer spending or deficits. The problem is, it can’t last."

In his review of how American currency has been taken to a precipice, Paul pointed out that, "In November 2000 Saddam Hussein demanded Euros for his oil. His arrogance was a threat to the dollar;" and that, "In 2001, Venezuela’s ambassador to Russia spoke of Venezuela switching to the Euro for all their oil sales. Within a year there was a coup attempt against Chavez, reportedly with assistance from our CIA." Finally, "Now Iran, especially since she’s made plans for pricing oil in Euros, has been on the receiving end of a propaganda war not unlike that waged against Iraq before our invasion."

It is clear that America's political leadership has managed the country to a place where international economic growth and political support from other countries is more important than serving the interests of American citizens. The penchant of politicians for telling us their leadership is providing us with a "robust economy" and "homeland security" in spite of the facts suggests that they are not going to change course any time soon.

It then comes to Americans to protect themselves from the political system that has high jacked the institutions of government and the economy which should be serving Americans. The key to that protection is in understanding the balance of powers that are defined by the US Constitution. Paying more attention to local and state office holders and demanding they defend their responsibilities from political and federal usurpation offers the hope that America might survive the plans of our current national leaders.

 

By Bob Strodtbeck
Columnist
Bob Strodtbeck has been writing editorial commentaries since 1993.  He has professional experiences in pharmaceuticals, radio, and education.  He has also served as a church elder in an Orlando congregation where he has made his home since 1986.rvstrodtbeck@peoplepc.com

  Related Books

Keywords and misspellings:  politics poletics democrat demoncrat republican repub comentary commentary Irac


Google
 
Web bestsyndication.com

About   Contact   site map

Copyright 2005 Best Syndication                                            Last Updated Saturday, July 10, 2010 09:46 PM