The Meaning of Benghazi

The Meaning of Benghazi

The death of four Americans on 9/11/12 in a consulate in Benghazi, Libya has become political trouble for the Obama campaign in multiple ways. His foreign policy, denying Islamic roots of terror, leads to either misunderstanding or covering up the motivations of terrorists in Benghazi, as well as not preparing for a possible 9/11 attack.

 

1.       CONTINUING TERROR ATTACKS SHOW FOREIGN POLICY FAILURE

Contrary to the Obama campaign, the war on terror is not over. Bin Laden is dead by Al Qaeda and other groups are not. Obama’s election was supposed to be a reset of relations between the US and Middle Eastern nations, ushering in an era of closer relations in the spirit of multicultural understanding. In fact, the record shows relations have worsened: Iran is closer to nuclear weapons; Iraq is working with Iran; the “Arab Spring” handed over Egypt, Libya, and other nations from secular dictators to the Muslim Brotherhood and other fundamentalists; more Americans have died in Afghanistan in four years under Obama than under eight years under Bush.

Getting rid of Qaddafi paved the way for an al Qaeda resurgence.

Going into Libya was solely Obama’s decision. Libya posed no threat to the US; Qaddafi had voluntarily turned over WMD research materials and ended his WMD development program after the US invaded Iraq, for fear that he would be next. Obama sent US forces in over the objections of many, citing imminent slaughter of innocents. Yet he never went before the American people, or Congress, to make the case for going in; it was taken as self-explanatory that we must act to prevent a massive slaughter.

What does the intelligence say about Libya and al Qaeda? National Security reporter Bill Gertz writes at http://freebeacon.com/al-qaeda-winter/ that a  “54-page unclassified report describes al Qaeda—which President Barack Obama recently declared to be in decline—as “seeking to create an al Qaeda clandestine network in Libya that could be activated in the future to destabilize the government and/or to offer logistical support to al Qaeda’s activities in North Africa and the Sahel”—the Sahara desert region stretching across northern Africa.

The report is dated August 2012 and was published before the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.”

What is al Qaeda doing in Libya?

“Strategically, al Qaeda’s goal in the country is to set up a “caliphate, instituting sharia, and ending the Western presence in Muslim lands,” the report said.

“Al-Qaeda’s primary goal in Libya is to establish an Islamic emirate as part of its overall objective to reestablish the caliphate.””

Did Obama see the report? If he did, why say al Qaeda is in decline? If not, why not? This is unclassified material, so one can wonder what other material the President would be privy to. It came out in August, so he had plenty of time to see the material.

Note the clear statement here of the long-term goal of al Qaeda. It is exactly the same as the long term goal of all Muslim fundamentalists: the entire world under the rule of Sharia law.

Where is the President on this? Is he speaking out against Sharia law – or dodging the issue?

More generally, those benefitting the most from the last four years are militant fundamentalists such as the Muslim Brotherhood. From the “Arab Spring” to the present, they’ve gained considerable political power throughout the Middle East. American interests have suffered as a result. Egypt, for instance, has torn up the Camp David Accords in which, among other things, they officially recognized Israel’s right to exist. This brings them closer to their goal of a pan-national Islamic state throughout the region, and ultimately, a world under Sharia law.

Contrary to 2008 promises of establishing closer ties with the Middle East, we see that four years later the terror attacks continue. His overarching policy of cozying up to the Middle East, of building bridges instead of waging war, has not worked.

In today’s WSJ, an excellent op-ed by Douglas J. Feith and Seth Cropsey explains a fundamental error in Obama’s foreign policy: a failure to acknowledge the obvious and name the enemy. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444354004578061134174936450.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

“[T]here's a bigger problem here than cynicism. It is that the administration's first response—to blame an American video, not Islamist terrorists—reflected strategic misjudgments. First is the refusal to accept that the terrorism threat is part of a larger problem of Islamist extremism. And second is the belief that terrorism is spawned not by religious fanaticism but by grievances about social, economic and other problems for which America bears fault.

When Mr. Obama became president, he was intent on repudiating the previous administration's war on terrorism, which saw al Qaeda as part of a diverse international movement of Islamist extremists hostile to the United States, to liberal democratic principles (in particular the rights of women), and to most governments of predominantly Muslim countries.”

“The problem with ignoring ideology is made clear—unintentionally—in President Obama's National Counter-Terrorism Strategy, released in June 2011. In it he writes: "We are at war with a specific organization—al-Qa'ida." But America also has to work aggressively against Hezbollah, he notes a few pages later—and against a number of terrorist groups in South Asia, he further adds, "even if we achieve the ultimate defeat of al-Qa'ida in the Afghanistan-Pakistan theater."

So our problem is substantially broader than al Qaeda—and even broader than al Qaeda and its affiliates. What all these groups have in common is Islamist ideology—yet Mr. Obama ignores that.”

This is the heart of it: Obama acts as if Islamic ideology were irrelevent to terrorism. When confronted with the issue, as he was with Benghazi, he looks to other explanations.

“Because Mr. Obama misdiagnoses terrorism and extremism, it is not surprising that he failed to recognize their consequences; instead, he reflexively looked in the Benghazi wreckage for a cause that originated in this country.

Such thinking infects many streams of Obama administration foreign policy. If the president were clear-eyed about Islamist extremism, he wouldn't have cold-shouldered the antiregime demonstrators in Iran in June 2009. He wouldn't have cut funds for promoting democracy and human rights abroad. He wouldn't have made a diplomatic representative of Salam al-Marayati, who calls for Hezbollah's removal from the U.S. terrorist list and has said that "Israel should be put on the suspect list" for the 9/11 attack. And the president wouldn't have spent more energy denouncing foolish American bigots than condemning organized, anti-American terrorism.”

 

What happened was not an isolated case. It is indicative of his overall foreign policy failure.

 

2.  LAX PREPARATION INDICATES EITHER IGNORANCE OR INDIFFERENCE

I’ve yet to hear anyone ask a simple question: given it was the first 9/11 anniversary following the death of Bin Laden, why didn’t we beef up security around possible targets? There’s no need for direct intelligence about specifics; the anniversary itself would be sufficient justification. Also, it was already known that Benghazi was rife with Al Qaeda supporters; why not beef up security based on that? When requests came in, why not beef up security based on that?

Regardless of the reasons for the lax security, the responsibility for it lies ultimately with the President. It demonstrates a failure to prepare based on the facts available.

 

3.       THE COVER-UP SHOWS OBAMA LIED REPEATEDLY

In an earlier post http://strikingthemes.blogspot.com/2012/10/benghazi-attack-timeline-of-cover-up.html I showed the timeline of the narrative which continues to daily “evolve” – based on what was or wasn’t said at the Rose Garden, for instance.

The clear truth is the early reports said nothing about this being a terrorist attack, despite clear statements to the contrary from intelligence agencies within 24 hours of the attack. The changing story is not consistent with itself, nor with reports from others who have come forward. The Obama administration has spent several days lying to the public, then lying about lying.

So much for the most transparent administration in history. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FIrNGkd3Uc&feature=related

 

4.       OBAMA REFUSES TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY

Obama blamed various people: those behind the video; the CIA; the State Dept. Then Hillary Clinton took the blame. Finally, at the second Presidential debate, Obama stood up and claimed he was ultimately responsible.

 

5.       OBAMA’S REACTION INDICATES LACK OF FOCUS ON NATIONAL DEFENSE

Obama now has a documented record of not attending his daily intelligence briefings, unlike prior Presidents. Both Bush and Clinton attended nearly 100% of their daily briefings.

It’s one thing to read documents; it’s another to sit down with the authors of the document, to ask questions and probe deeper on different aspects.

His attendance record points to a lack of concern.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-bogus-defense-of-obamas-intelligence-briefing-record/2012/09/25/f5ae10de-071d-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_story.html

Immediately following the 9/11/12 attack, Obama could have called in all experts on the subject. He could have gone over all details of the event to understand what was happening and what to do about it.

But he didn’t. He flew to a fundraiser in Las Vegas instead.

 

LOOKING FORWARD

Some might object here and say: “He should have beefed up security. He should’ve come clean about the facts. But this is an isolated incident. It’s tragic, but let’s move on.”

Now that we’ve had four years to see how Obama operates, we can look at an actual record to see how he’ll act in the future. And that record is not good.

In this case, consider his actions with Benghazi.

The tragedy could have been prevented, or at least reduced, had the consulate been better protected. This was not an intelligence failure. Everyone knows the significance of the date September 11. It takes no special knowledge to guess that terrorists would want to commemorate that with a new attack. We could have issued an alert about it. We could have beefed up security. That we didn’t is a failure to either understand the situation or to take it seriously by preparing for it. Either is a serious flaw for any President when it comes to major issues like terrorism.

His response after the attack was to fly to Las Vegas for a fundraiser. He should have stopped what he was doing and made it a priority to focus on the issue. It is at least comparable to Bush’s “Katrina moment” where his foes claimed the mere appearance of apathy was terrible. Here, Obama could have at least made an effort to appear to take the issue seriously.

His response is also akin to Watergate. Nixon’s foes claimed the cover-up was unbecoming of a President, regardless of the scale of the crimes committed. That standard applies here: if he covered up the facts, and lied repeatedly to the public, he should be held accountable.

We know who the terrorists are and what they want. They are the Muslims willing to engage in, or support those who engage in, violence to ultimately place the world under Sharia law.

To defend our rights and our freedom, to defend our very lives, we need a leader who understands this issue and is willing to act accordingly. Obama has demonstrated an inability to do so. Benghazi is just one example.

Some may say Benghazi was a mistake; others want to ascribe malice and say it was intentional. In the end the results are the same. We have a President who is either unable or unwilling to identify Islam as the ideology driving the terrorists; to see the “Arab Spring” as a sweeping swing toward theocracy in the Arab region; to see the terrorist acts not as isolated incidents but as small pieces of a bigger war; to act to prepare Americans abroad for threats; and to ultimately take responsibility for his mistakes and be honest with the American public.

We need an honest, responsible person in the President. He needs to have a better foreign policy, and especially a better policy toward fighting terrroists, their supporters, and their ideological roots.

Benghazi Attack: Timeline of Cover-Up

On 9/11/12, the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, is attacked, leaving our ambassador and three other Americans dead. The initial claims of a protest over a video have been disproven. It was an outright terrorist attack. Since then, the story from the White House has changed several times. VP Biden clearly lied in the 10/11/12 VP debate when asked about this matter.

THE TIMELINE

9/11: U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya is attacked, Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans are killed.

9/12: Secretary Clinton and President Obama issue statements condemning both the video and the attacks. U.S. intelligence agencies have enough evidence to conclude a terrorist attack was involved.

9/13: Press Secretary Jay Carney condemns video and violence at a news conference.

9/14: Carney denies Administration had “actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent.” The bodies of slain Americans return to Andrews Air Force Base. President Obama again blames the YouTube video.

9/16: U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice appears on Sunday talk shows and says the attacks were provoked by the video, exclusively. Libyan President Mohamed Magarief says, “no doubt that this [attack] was preplanned, predetermined.”

9/17: State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland refuses to call attacks an act of terror.

9/19: CNN reports having found Ambassador Stevens’s diary, which indicates concern about security threats in Benghazi. Director of the National Counterterrorism Center Matthew Olsen tells Congress the attack in Libya was “terrorism.”

9/20: Carney tries to back up Olsen, says it was “self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”  Obama refuses to call attack terrorism, citing insufficient information.

9/21: Secretary of State Clinton, at meeting with Pakistani Foreign Minister, says, “What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”

9/25: On ABC’s “The View,” Obama says, “we don’t have all of the information yet so we are still gathering.” To the U.N. assembly, Obama blames “A crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.”

9/26 Libya’s Magarief on the “Today” show says, “It was a preplanned act of terrorism directed against American citizens.” Published reports show U.S. Intel agencies and the Obama Administration knew within 24 hours that al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist were involved.

9/27: Innocence of Muslims filmmaker Mark Basseley Youseff (aka Nakoula Basseley Nakoula) is arrested and denied bail on the charges of “probation violation.”

10/2: Carney declines to comment on reported requests from diplomats in Libya for additional security, citing the State Department’s internal investigation.

10/10:  In Congressional hearings on the Libya attacks, former regional security director Eric Nordstrom described his frustration with having those requests for additional security turned down by the government bureaucracy: “For me the Taliban is on the inside of the building.”

10/11: Biden at the VP debate: “Well, we weren’t told the wanted more security again.”

Sources:

http://theydontfoolme.com/6065/timeline-re-benghazi-terrorist-attacks-91112-and-obama-administration-reaction/

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/08/an-incriminating-timeline-the-obama-administration-and-libya/

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/12/Fact-Check-Top-Ten-Worst-Lies-by-Joe-Biden-in-VP-Debate

WHAT IT MEANS

 

Biden’s 10/10 claims directly contradict statements by others that additional security was requested.

Obama, Clinton, and others initially blamed a video. Now it appears there never was a protest (about a video or any other issue) prior to the attack.

In the VP debate, Moderator Martha Raddatz asked Biden directly why administration spokesman “were talking about protests” in Benghazi. “When people in the consulate first saw armed men attacking with guns, there were no protesters. Why did that go on?”

 “Because that was exactly what we were told by the intelligence community,” Biden said. “The intelligence community told us that. As they learned more facts about exactly what happened, they changed their assessment.”http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-throws-intelligence-community-under-bus_654268.html

 Biden’s claim contradicts everything said by people on or near the scene.

Lt. Col. Andrew Wood said that when he heard of the attack on the Benghazi post on September 11, it was “instantly recognizable” that it had been a terrorist attack.

 Why?

 “Mainly because of my prior knowledge there,” Wood said. “I almost expected the attack to come. We were the last flag flying. It was a matter of time.” http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/security-officer-on-state-department-blocking-requests-for-me-the-taliban-is-inside-the-building/

This isn’t rocket science. Osama Bin Laden had been killed months earlier. This was the first anniversary of 9/11 since he died. It ought to have been standard protocol to beef up security in anticipation of unrest, protest, or even attacks. Why didn’t that happen? And, what was the ambassador doing in the consulate rather than staying in the better defended embassy? These are good questions to investigate.

Yet after the attack, why wouldn’t the first assumption be that it was a terror attack? Consider the description of the attack; does this sound like a spontaneous protest out of control?
 
On September 11, 2012, the United States consulate in Benghazi, Libya was attacked by militias, heavily armed with rocket-propelled grenades, hand grenades, various small arms (possibly AK-47 and FN F2000 NATO assault rifles), gun trucks, and mortars, in a sustained gunbattle that lasted nearly 5 hours. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_the_U.S._diplomatic_mission_in_Benghazi

UPDATE (10/12/12, 2:30PM):
Here's an interesting report on the intelligence that the White House claimed showed that the video was to blame. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/01/the-intel-behind-obama-s-libya-line.print.html

However, the intercept was one of several monitored communications during and after the attacks between members of a local militia called Ansar al-Sharia and AQIM, which, taken together, suggest the assault was in fact a premeditated terrorist attack, according to U.S. intelligence and counter-terrorism officials not authorized to talk to the press.
 

In one of the calls, for example, members of Ansar al-Sharia bragged about their successful attack against the American consulate and the U.S. ambassador.
 

It’s unclear why the talking points said the attacks were spontaneous and why they didn’t mention the possibility of al Qaeda involvement, given the content of the intercepts and the organizations the speakers were affiliated with. One U.S. intelligence officer said the widely distributed assessment was an example of “cherry picking,” or choosing one piece of intelligence and ignoring other pieces, to support a preferred thesis.
 

One U.S. intelligence officer said the widely distributed assessment was an example of “cherry picking,” or choosing one piece of intelligence and ignoring other pieces, to support a preferred thesis.

“Even if you push out that one piece of intelligence,” said this intelligence officer, “it is still in the context of a conversation between a group with an affinity to al Qaeda and a manager of an al-Qaeda affiliate. Why were we only hearing about how the attack was inspired and not about that?”

The Real Financial Crisis 101

OVERVIEW
We haven't recovered from the 2007 crisis. Much more pain is coming. I outline what it will likely look like, what you can do to protect yourself, and what can be done politically to hold it off or at least prevent another event and get us to recovery.

THE REAL CRISIS: A BRIEF OVERVIEW
The 2007 financial crisis was never solved. We are not in a recovery. The stock market is up, in nominal terms, from the 2009 bottom. In real terms, it’s down.

Consider this. In 2000, gold was let’s say $300/oz and the DJIA was $14,000. Priced in gold, the DJIA was about 46 ounces of gold. Today, gold is $1770/oz. 46 ounces of gold would be worth $81,000. In other words, if we price the Dow Jones Industrial Average in gold, it would have to be $81,000 to be on par with the real value of the market 12 years ago. Today it is $13,500, down 84%!

Assume this is off considerably. Suppose gold was too low in 2000 or too high now; let’s divide that in two. So DJIA should be $40,000. But we’re still about 1/3 of that.

Still don’t buy it? Halve it again – to $20,000. We’re still well below that number.

The stock market has not recovered. We have not met our all-time highs. The NASDAQ is nowhere near its tech bubble high of 5,000.

Here’s a chart showing the gold price of stocks, using some different numbers. The trend shows the truth. http://goldnews.bullionvault.com/gold_stocks_053120116

This is not, in real dollars, a good market.

Employment is worse than reported. The 8.1% number is a statistical ruse, not taking into account those who are “underemployed” or those who stopped looking for work. Went back to school because you couldn’t get a job? You’re no longer considered unemployed. If we calculate unemployment using the method used in the 70s or earlier, the picture is much worse: over 20%.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

Real estate is faring no better. Some areas still attract investment and are nice places to live – Orange County, CA or the Bay Area, for instance. Overall, though, there’s a lack of investing in new developments, a lack of new construction, a drop in sales volume. 

Recently, banks began lending again. Potential home owners are reporting more credit is becoming available again. 

But by itself, this isn’t good. Too much credit contributed to the problem. A person earning minimum wage doesn’t have the income to support a million-dollar home. For the moment, that degree of craziness is not showing up. But that didn’t show up early in the last bubble either; it was a contrary indicator of the peak of the bubble.

The indication is that Washington is pushing to reflate the housing bubble, so that people will once again have the illusion of wealth – not realizing that their current spending is paid out of their future poverty.

The stock market, the job market, and the real estate market all point to a simple fact: the economy is not doing well. If we’re honest about the numbers, we are in a depression.

My goal in this blog post is to indicate at a high level what’s happening with the economy, where I think we’re headed, what you can do about it, and what ought to be done politically.

Given the introductory thumbnail sketch of the economy, what lies ahead?

The root of the problem is a welfare state spending itself into oblivion, using borrowed money and a fiat currency. The solution has to be massive spending cuts, paying off the debt, and returning to the gold standard. Doing these gives us the best chance of averting catastrophe – if it isn’t too late. 

Government at all levels – local, state, and federal – is supporting an unsustainable welfare state. We transfer far too much money from producers to moochers. This is a huge sinkhole for wealth that is accelerating, especially as the Baby Boomers retire and draw Social Security and Medicare. The simple math shows this will collapse.

Governments around the world are experiencing the same thing. The USSR could not support itself, and it economically failed, and with it, East Germany and the rest of the Iron Curtain. Today, Greece was first to fall, and today limping along on handouts from Germany, the IMF, and the US. They have no plan for changing their situation. Fortunately for the rest of us, their economy is relatively small compared to the EU, so paying them off isn’t too much of a burden. However, paying them off sets up a dangerous precedent for bailing out the other PIIGS.

Right now, it looks like Spain and Italy will be next to fall; maybe France. These economies are much larger, and the EU won’t be able to bail them out continuously. When one of the falls, the weight on the rest of the EU will grow, and accelerate the collapse of other EU countries.

Even today, the wealthy have pulled assets out. Expect that to continue.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/business/global/money-and-people-leave-spain-as-economic-gloom-deepens.html?pagewanted=all

The bank runs will get worse, as people gradually wise up and pull their money out. Many have already done so. http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/the-bank-runs-in-greece-will-soon-be-followed-by-bank-runs-in-other-european-nations

The problems we see worldwide stem from the end of the welfare state: it was never sustainable, and it’s taken a long time to reach its end. But they can’t borrow more money or tax more businesses to sustain it, and the game is ending.

The EU, for decades more socialist than the US, is worse off. They are starting off with higher unemployment, taxes, and regulations, as well as cultures less entrepreneurial and more focused on entitlements than working hard. So, they are not only further along on their descent, but have less reserve (economically, culturally, philosophically, politically) to turn themselves around. 

For a good discussion of the cultures of the nations affected in the 2007 crisis, and how their cultures shaped the form of the collapse for them and what obstacles they face, see Michael Lewis’s Boomerang http://www.amazon.com/Boomerang-Travels-New-Third-World/dp/0393081818 and http://abcnews.go.com/Business/10-lessons-michael-lewis-book-boomerang/story?id=14617422

For these reasons, Europe is starting to collapse. As it unfolds, it will accelerate, and it isn’t clear which countries will fall when.  It could take 2-3 years for things to run their course. Given its political nature, there may be another chance to kick the can down the road – or not; another bailout – or not; a real turnaround – or not.

Other countries like Japan may fall before all of Europe.

Japan, as the world’s third largest economy, is a special problem. It’s size and international trade means other countries don’t want to see it collapse.

But Japan’s welfare state is old, having piled up debt for so many years. This is the big reason their central bank keeps interest at zero – if it were higher, the tax revenue would be swallowed up making interest payments on their debt! Hedge fund head Kyle Bass has made a famously big bet on Japan going belly-up. http://kylebassblog.blogspot.com/ 

What about the good ol’ US of A? For the moment, we’re not collapsing. All those people in Europe, China, Japan with cash to keep safe view the USA as a safe haven. That money is coming here and buying up T-bills, bonds, other assets, which provides more credit for the borrowing (be it consumers, businesses, or governments). This is keeping the dollar exchange rate fairly high, despite Washington’s best efforts to devalue it.

In the long run, though, the fiat currency of the dollar will collapse – period. A fiat currency can’t be maintained long term. When it does, those same foreign investors will dump US assets and go to the final refuge: hard assets – real estate, precious metals – but especially: gold. 

If the dollar collapses, unemployment will soar. With no income, housing payments will stop, so the housing market will plunge. At worst, it would mimic the hyperinflation of Argentina or Weimar Germany; at best, it would be the 1970’s again. Most likely, we’ll be somewhere in between.

These are long-term forecasts. In between now and then, things will be volatile. The stock market will bounce around, as will commodity prices like that for gold. Unemployment will likely go up.

This will be a global event. The dollar is the world’s reserve currency. We live in an age of global trade and world-spanning supply chains. This means there’s nowhere to hide from it.

Some countries will fare better than others. Culturally, my money’s on the USA. Even I four economy slashed in half, we’d still be the biggest. We have a spirit of individualism and a work ethic that will get us through tough times, and recover more quickly. We are less likely to see severe food riots or group upon group ethnic fighting.

In the very long run, we’ll survive. It isn’t a descent into the dark ages like the fall of Rome; that would take far longer to happen.

In a nutshell, the likely sequence would be:

1.       EU collapse

2.       Japan collapse

3.       Dollar collapse

4.       Economic collapse (global)

5.       Legal reform - Restoration of gold standard, lower taxes and regulations

6.       Recovery

This WILL NOT be a straight line. It has been, is, and will be very volatile; see the recent history of the gold price for proof of that.

When we have huge economic turmoil across many nations, expect war to break out. (See Currency Wars for some discussion of this.) A China-Russia axis could push against a weakened US to establish control over Asia. A nuclear Iran could destroy Israel and push Islam further into a weakened Europe.

 

PROTECT YOURSELF

This is a very brief overview. The first and best thing to do is get educated. Start by reading these below.

(Key: $ = highly recommended. * = I haven’t read it but expect lots of good information)

The big four:
Atlas Shrugged – The biggest big picture, covering philosophy, politics, psychology, and economics. It’ll help you see the big picture and make sense out of it, even if you don’t understand all the economic details. ($) http://atlasshrugged.com/

 Crash Proof 2.0 – Peter Schiff gives a good overview of the economics and politics of what’s happened, with good advice on investing. ($) http://www.amazon.com/Crash-Proof-2-0-Economic-Collapse/dp/111815200X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1347641895&sr=1-1&keywords=crash+proof+2.0+by+peter+schiff

Currency Wars – a look at the international aspects of the global crisis. A currency war begat WWII. Will the current currency war (a race to the bottom between USA, EU, and China) lead to a shooting war? Good history of 20^th century international economics and politics. Chapter 11 is entitled “Endgame – Paper, Gold, or Chaos?” It looks at the options for what’s coming, and what each entails. ($) http://www.amazon.com/Currency-Wars-Making-Global-Portfolio/dp/1591844495

The Financial Crisis and the Free Market Cure – John Allison, retired CEO of BB&T (one of the biggest banks in the US) and new head of Cato Institute digs in deep to the causes and solutions to the financial crisis. He has the financial, business, economic, and philosophical perspective to analyze this crisis. ($*) http://www.amazon.com/Financial-Crisis-Free-Market-Cure/dp/0071806776/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1347612286&sr=1-1&keywords=john+allison

Others to consider:

I.O.U.S.A. (DVD, 2008) – Easy to follow overview of the numbers behind the debt. It doesn’t give the whole story behind the crisis, but the massive debt, and especially the unfunded liabilities, are having an impact already on the economy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.O.U.S.A

http://www.iousathemovie.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5dT2uwj5jA Part 1 on YouTube. Links to the other parts from there.

Endgame – Covers much the same material as Crash Proof. (*) http://www.amazon.com/Endgame-Debt-Supercycle-Changes-Everything/dp/1118004574/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1347642926&sr=1-1&keywords=endgame

Empire of Debt
“[F]inancial analysts Bill Bonner and Addison Wiggin argue passionately that not only is the United States an empire, but it is also one whose end is coming soon. Bonner and Wiggin are the brains behind www.dailyreckoning.com, an iconoclastic and irreverent market advisory service that has long raised concerns about American indebtedness and warned of a looming dollar crisis. In Empire of Debt, a sequel to their earlier doom-and-gloom book Financial Reckoning Day, they elaborate on their argument that the U.S. economy is about to implode.” http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Debt-Financial-Crisis-Series/dp/047198048X

The Real Crash – a follow-up by Peter Schiff to his Crash Proof 2.0 (*) http://www.amazon.com/Real-Crash-Americas-Bankruptcy---How-Yourself/dp/1250004470/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1347644851&sr=1-1&keywords=the+real+crash

“In The Real Crash, New York Times bestselling author Peter D. Schiff argues that America is enjoying a government-inflated bubble, one that reality will explode . . . with disastrous consequences for the economy and for each of us. Schiff demonstrates how the infusion of billions of dollars of stimulus money has only dug a deeper hole: the United States government simply spends too much and does not collect enough money to pay its debts, and in the end, Americans from all walks of life will face a crushing consequence.

“We’re in hock to China, we can’t afford the homes we own, and the entire premise of our currency---backed by the full faith and credit of the United States---is false. Our system is broken, Schiff says, and there are only two paths forward.  The one we’re on now leads to a currency and sovereign debt crisis that will utterly destroy our economy and impoverish the vast majority of our citizens. 

"However, if we change course, the road ahead will be a bit rockier at first, but the final destination will be far more appealing.  If we want to avoid complete collapse, we must drastically reduce government spending---eliminate entire agencies, end costly foreign military escapades and focus only on national defense---and stop student loan or mortgage interest deductions, as well as drug wars and bank-and-business bailouts. We must also do what no politician or pundit has proposed: America should declare bankruptcy, restructure its debts, and reform our system from the ground up."

If you’re interested in more of the history of economics and finance, take a look at these:

The Ascent of Money – Niall Ferguson looks at how societies have continually created and survived financial crises, with the goal of finding solid solutions to today s worldwide economic emergency.
http://www.amazon.com/Ascent-Money-Financial-History-World/dp/0143116177/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1347641579&sr=1-1&keywords=the+ascent+of+money  (*)

DVD version available: http://www.amazon.com/Ascent-Money-Presented-Niall-Ferguson/dp/B001Q7JM2S ($)

(Of course, the DVD has nowhere near the detail of the book, but it is an excellent overview.)
 

When Money Dies - For a close-up look at life under hyperinflation, see this. Be careful not to extrapolate from this one situation to every financial crisis.http://www.amazon.com/When-Money-Dies-Devaluation-Hyperinflation/dp/1586489941/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1347641659&sr=1-1&keywords=when+money+dies

This Time is Different – Harvard researchers look at 800 years of financial history, “a comprehensive look at the varieties of financial crises, and guides us through eight astonishing centuries of government defaults, banking panics, and inflationary spikes--from medieval currency debasements to today's subprime catastrophe.” ($*) http://www.amazon.com/This-Time-Different-Centuries-Financial/dp/0691152640/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1347641787&sr=1-1&keywords=this+time+is+different

 The Commanding Heights  - Casts Hayek versus Keynes as the 20^th century intellectual battle, played out around the world – socialist England, Chile, USA, China. (DVD from 2002.)http://www.amazon.com/Commanding-Heights-Battle-World-Economy/dp/B00006HAZF/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1347642871&sr=1-1&keywords=the+commanding+heights+the+battle+for+the+world+economy

I predict we’ll see massive inflation, but there’s a plausible argument for deflation to consider: we’re in the middle of the popping of the biggest credit bubble in history. That credit has pushed up prices. When the bubble pops, there’ll be less credit chasing goods, so prices should drop tremendously.

Conquer the Crash – Robert Prechter gives the best deflation argument http://www.amazon.com/Conquer-Crash-Survive-Deflationary-Depression/dp/047056797X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1347641986&sr=1-1&keywords=conquer+the+crash

The Great Depression Ahead  - Harry Dent argues for deflation. The book came out in 2009, and already, his predictions are way off. He uses a lot of the same ideas as Prechter – demographics and Kondratieff cycles. http://www.amazon.com/Great-Depression-Ahead-Prosper-Crisis/dp/141658899X/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1347643127&sr=1-2&keywords=great+depression+ahead

For details on Kondratieff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kondratiev_wave

http://www.fgmr.com/fiat-currency-in-a-kondratieff-winter.html

http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/christopher-quigley/kondratieff-waves-and-the-greater-depression-of-2013-2020

There’re a lot of good online resources. A few include blogs or videos by/of authors like Niall Ferguson (history of money); Marc Faber; Peter Schiff; Mike “Mish” Shedlock; Yaron Brook; Jim Rogers; John Allison; Kyle Bass.

Websites (a partial list):

www.aynrand.org 
http://www.zerohedge.com/
http://www.shadowstats.com/ - the best source of info on employment stats
http://dollarcollapse.com/
http://usdebtclock.org/ Continually updated estimate of state and federal debt. On Sept 14 2012, liability per taxpayer (Social Security, Medicare, Drug benefit) is over $1,000,000. Current debt of over $16 trillion works to $140,173 per taxpayer.
 

Economic commentators:

http://marcfaberblog.blogspot.com/
http://www.niallferguson.com/
http://peterschiffblog.blogspot.com/
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/ - Mike Shedlock’s blog
http://www.jimrogers.com/
http://www.kylebassblog.blogspot.com/
Fascinating Kyle Bass video (long and technical but worthwhile; from 2010):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF3sJFCyyMM

 

On housing:

http://thehousingbubbleblog.com/index.html
http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com/
http://piggington.com/ (San Diego market analysis)
http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/ (Irvine / Orange County analysis; excellent commentary and good links to other resources)

 Thomas Sowell does a good job of giving an overview of the housing crisis. See

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GoAGuTIbVY
http://www.amazon.com/Housing-Boom-Bust-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465018807
 
I’m not a financial advisor, just a concerned person with an interest in economics and investing. Yet I’d be remiss if I didn’t recommend a few things to consider:

GOLD

Buy gold, in various forms – ETFs, mining company stock, options, physical. Plan to hold for a long time. Buy over time, using dollar cost averaging.

When to sell? There’s a tricky thing. Consider the following chart: http://stratcomments.blogspot.com/2010_11_01_archive.html (from Jim Roger’s book Hot Commodities) This shows 36-year cycles, in which for 18 years or so, stocks outperform commodities, then for the next 18 or so, it reverses. Notice the stock market bull run from 1982-2000 was 18 years, and since 2000, commodities have outpaced the stock market – by a large margin.

If this trend continues, then commodities should be good until 2018 or so, and then the stock market will begin a new bull market. (Timing won’t have to be perfect, and you won’t have to pick individual companies; maybe just swap a gold ETF for a DJIA ETF.)

Considering how far back the data goes in that chart, I’d be surprised to see things change. Consider all of the political upheaval the nation saw, and how that pattern kept going. It isn’t sacrosanct, but give it some weight. At some point, I’m optimistic about the American economy rebounding for good, having more than a dead cat bounce.

If the economy really collapses, those who hold real assets will have real wealth; those holding paper will have nothing. At the bottom, real estate could be purchased for very low prices. That trade should be considered.

OTHER ASSETS

Silver is good. Consider in fact any real asset, including real estate. Gold is good, but be sure to diversify somewhat to hedge against risk. These may not be as good as gold, or they may be better under certain conditions. Land, food, guns.

If you are convinced massive inflation is coming, consider borrowing. A loan today for money you’ll pay back pennies on the dollar may make sense. If severe deflation happens, though, you could be wiped out.

If you have experience with them, or can learn in time, consider using options to profit from the collapse.

LIVING

If there is big-time economic collapse, how will you support yourself? Consider what kinds of work, in what areas to live, to best whether the storm. Save now what you can, and plan for the future. Consider being mobile with few assets versus being self-sufficient (largely) away from dangerous populated areas. Consider which populated areas will be safer. Consider building a network of friends to share information, or perhaps help in other ways. Consider what it means to live daily according to any possible plan you consider; is that life acceptable?

Consider the ways in which inflation will affect you – gas prices, food prices, utilities, rent. Consider the ways social unrest, even food riots, will affect your safety.

Of course, take measures to protect yourself – physically and economically – but don’t give up on life. Plan for the future, but don’t give up on enjoying the present as you do so. 

POLITICS

What can be done politically?

End the welfare state – personal and corporate welfare; subsidies; Medicare/Medicaid; social security. Learn about the Chilean model to see how one nation got its people to voluntarily quit the Chilean equivalent of Social Security; that could work in the USA or anywhere.

Cut taxes and regulations. That will help grow the economy and lower unemployment.

Restore the gold standard. This will kill inflation and grant the market visibility into interest rates. It will allow banks to better compete for customers.

There are lots of issues with restoring the gold standard correctly; see the chapter in Currency Wars. He prices the gold standard at $2,500 - $44,000/oz depending on how the money supply is calculated, which is well above the current price. (Pricing it wrong after WWI caused Britain years of heartache.) If we go back on the gold standard, holding gold would be prudent.

Shrink the roles of government. If the government isn’t permitted to do as much as it does today, the cost of it would sink, helping restore fiscal balance.

Hope this helps.

Kyle Bass on Sovereign Default

One of the people in finance to come to my attention recently is Kyle Bass, a Texas hedge fund manager. He's profiled briefly in the introduction to Michael Lewis's recent book "Boomerang." This interview with Michael Lewis gives an outline of some issues from his book, as well as a bit of background on Kyle Bass.

An absolutely fascinating (and frightening) video is an hour-long talk he gave in Austin in November 2011. (Title: AC2011 Session 1.2 Come Undone: Kyle Bass redux) The main topic is the direction of the ongoing global financial crisis, including the sovereign debt problem (which will likely lead to default). This video should not be missed.

(Business Insider put together a list of 15 insights from the video, which give an idea of what he discusses.)

This guy really does his homework. See the video link. He discusses gold at the 42-minute mark, and specifically why he took physical delivery. At the 46 minute mark, he forecasts money printing. At 47 minute mark, he reports talking to Obama cabinet, who say they intend to kill the dollar.

Scary.

The Secret Diary of Warren Buffett's Secretary

Dear Diary,

Wow OMG!! I was on national TV! I got to sit with the First Lady! Woo hoo! My girlfriends were soooo jealous when I showed them all the pictures I got with the Obamas.

When Warren first brought up this whole tax fairness thing, I had no idea how far it would go. Out of the blue, he called me into his office and explained he was working on a “special project” with the White House.  Pretty cool, I thought.

Warren wanted to talk publicly about his taxes and mine and wanted to know if I had a problem with that. I shrugged and said sure, whatever. I mean, he’s my boss and all, so I can’t really say no, you know?

So then he’s explaining about this super big oil deal in North Dakota. Warren bought the train to ship oil out of there and is making beaucoup bucks (as usual) because he has no competition. But some Candians want to put in a big pipeline to get the oil out of there. Then he’s all blah, blah, blah, numbers, numbers, numbers –Yawn- we lose money.

So the “special project” is we help the President get re-elected, and the President promises to keep the Canadians out of the deal. Sweeeeet! Warren’s smart like that.

But I asked what that has to do with our taxes.

“Well,” he said, “it isn’t fair that you pay less taxes than me.”

I was stunned.  “Wait a minute,” I said. “I pay more taxes than you? You’re one of the richest dudes in the world. How come you’re not paying more than me?”

Warren goes, “I am paying more – millions and millions of dollars compared to your thousands. But I’m paying a lower rate than you overall because of capital gains.”

“Huh?”

“If things were fair I’d pay even more millions in taxes.”

“Oh, is that like the flat tax thing?”

“Oh no no no. We don’t want that. That’s not fair either.”

I was confused. “But doesn’t that make everyone pay the same rate? Wouldn’t that be fairest?”

“No, poor people can’t afford to pay taxes. Fairness means taking money from rich guys like me and giving it to poor people like you.”

Cool! Warren’s plenty rich and he won’t miss a few million dollars. I started thinking about all the things I could buy – an iPad would be sweet!

“Cool! How much would I get?”

“Well, that’s a tough question,” he said before explaining why it was all so complicated. I nodded along until he finished talking. My eyes glaze over so much when he talks like that. I tried really hard not to yawn. I think he answered my question but I didn’t get it.  I didn’t want to seem stupid by asking him to explain it again. Still, if Warren’s paying more taxes then he’d be paying out huge amounts. An iPad? Maybe I could get a Corvette! Or take a big vacation. I wondered if it would make me rich like Warren.

I looked him square in the eye. “Are you suuurre you won’t mind paying more taxes?” I sure as hell would.

“Oh no! Rich people like me have tons of money sitting around. We just sip martinis on our yachts while ordinary people are out of work. That’s just unfair.”

I nodded. I wanted a yacht. How unfair that only a few people had yachts. “Yeah! Everyone should have a yacht – that would be fair!”

“Right!” he said. “And that’s where our ‘special project’ comes in.”

I was confused.

“See the President is in real trouble for this election. The economy is a big problem. People are mad at the President because of it.”

I nodded.

“So he wants to deflect that anger. He wants to get people mad at someone else.”

“Who?”

“Millionaires and billionaires like me. See Obama wants to say that the problem with the economy is that people like me aren’t paying enough taxes.”

“Oh.”

“Saying it that way doesn’t matter to most people. But tell them that it isn’t fair somebody has a lot of money while you’re out of work, and that fires ‘em up!”

“But can’t people just get a job and make money?”

“Sure, but not everyone wants to.  Lots of people – let’s call them the President’s main audience – don’t think it’s fair that they have to work for a living. They’d rather just get someone else to give them money.”

“Like welfare?”

“Sure, but that’s small potatoes. Some people have actual jobs but want lots of more money without working really hard. Those are the people Obama wants to vote for him.”

“So how does he get them to do that?”

“He’s going to campaign on the idea that everyone is entitled to more money. Well, except the rich, who aren’t entitled to anything.”

“Why not?”

“Because we’re rich.”

I was confused again.

“If guys like me work hard and save, we can get rich. But then what do we need to President for? We don’t need a handout.”

“But then why do you need this ‘special project’?”

“Oh, but that’s totally different. It’s not a handout, it’s a business deal.”

I didn’t get that.

“I help the President, he helps me. I help him get elected, he keeps competitors out of the way.”

“Oh, I see,” I said, but I didn’t get it. I don’t get a lot of things Warren said.

“So this is where you and I come in. See, some people will look at the President’s talk about the rich paying their ‘fair share’ and feel like there’s something wrong with it. They won’t quite see it clearly. It’ll be more of a sense that something is wrong. This is where I come in. If a rich guy, a successful businessman, says it’s ok, and it’s the right thing to do, and will make a difference to the economy, then people will believe it.”

“Oh. You do have a great reputation. People respect your opinions,” I said, but didn’t add that I didn’t understand them a lot of the time.

“Exactly! They’ll feel reassured. They’ll say to themselves: ‘Well, I think there’s something fishy about it, but if Warren Buffett says it makes business sense for the country, then it must be true. He’s made billions so he knows what he’s thinking about.’”

I nodded.

“And they may wonder about whether it’s fair or the right thing to do. Well, if they think I have nothing to gain by doing it, and end up giving up lots of money in higher taxes, then they must agree that I’m doing a very moral thing.”

“Ok.”

“So if a rich businessman like me endorses Obama’s plan, then people will think there’s no ground to object. It’s like both sides – government and business – agree on this.”

“Oh, I get it! When everyone agrees about something, there won’t be lots of questions. People will just accept it as the right thing to do.”

“Exactly! So this is why we’re going to talk about your taxes and mine. People will see that I pay a lower rate than you do, and agree to raise taxes on the rich.”

“But… Warren, why not just lower my rate to yours? That would make things fair, right? And I’d get to keep more money that I earned and you’d keep yours.”

“Well, that’s just naïve,” he said. I felt small. Warren was so smart. I didn’t understand this but I trust Warren and didn’t want to upset him.

“If we all kept the money we earned, the President couldn’t hand out money to other people. In the real world, he has to hand out favors to people to get their votes. Everyone does it. That’s just the way it is.”

“So taking money from one group of people is fair, and letting everyone keep their own money is unfair?”

“Now you get it!”

I didn’t but I went along anyway. It didn’t make sense to me. I guess I just wasn’t smart enough for that. It takes a lot of smarts to make sense out of this.

And boy is Warren smart!

The Iranian and Islamic Threat

Ron Paul’s GOP candidacy has helped spread the claims that Iran poses no threat to the US, and the hostility they do show is due to our involvement in the Middle East, that America is to some degree to blame for their acts of terror against us.

Both claims are false. Mark Helprin has an excellent WSJ editorial, The Mortal Threat From Iran, (01/18/2012) that gives an excellent overview of the issue.

Iran has been at war with the US since 1979 when the revolutionaries invaded the US embassy in Tehran and took US citizens hostage for over a year. Since then, Iran has been the leading state sponsor of terror. This timeline shows some of the attacks by Iran or its proxies or allies.

A recent court case found that “…Iran and Hezbollah materially and directly supported al Qaeda in the September 11, 2001 attacks and are legally responsible for damages to hundreds of family members of 9/11 victims who are plaintiffs in the case.” 

There are many issues associated with Iran gaining nuclear weapons. A good discussion on the topic is this 4-part 2009 discussion with historian Victor Davis Hanson and ex-CIA field agent Robert Baer.

A nation poses a threat if they are willing and able to cause us harm. Thus no discussion of Iran’s threat is complete without understanding their motivation. They are explicitly and in fact an Islamic theocracy. They have a somewhat pro-western middle class and an impressive scientific and engineering community, but the ruling class – the Mullahs, the IRGC – are devoutly Muslim.

It is false to claim they are responding to attacks from the west or incursions onto “their lands.” Under Islam, muslims have a duty to reconquer any land that was once under muslim control – which would include much of Europe. This is true even if the US had not gone into the Middle East, for oil or any other reason. It is not because US and/or British intelligence installed the shah in 1953. They are militant and at war with us because they are muslim.

So to grasp the threat from Iran one must also see the threat from Islam. A very good introduction to this is a 98-minute video, What the West Needs to Know About Islam.

As that video points out, the ultimate goal is a global caliphate. This is a long-term goal to which all other goals are subordinated. Thus if Obama tells the world the US military will withdraw from Afghanistan by a certain date, muslims like the Taliban will gladly wait until that date to return and reconquer the country. The western view of short-term, pragmatic thinking entirely misses the point about the patience and long-term perspective of the theocrats.

Muslims will kill or convert all nonbelievers. Muslims under sharia law are repressed and censored, subject to dictates from religious leaders. They are stoned or burned with acid or hung or beheaded for various “crimes.” Women are especially persecuted, regularly treated as less than second-class citizens, subject to sanctioned rape and abuse, and face genital mutilation and honor killings.

The deeper problem of Iran is its Islamic fundamentalism. It is not enough to call for a global “war on terror” because that fails to identify the root cause of the terrorism: Islam itself.

Some of the “new atheists” such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have taken on Islam directly, indicating its vile and irrational nature.

In the west, a massive evasion about the nature of Islam is allowing it to fester. Radical Islam is taking over Europe. What allows it to do so is the political correctness of the west under the ideology of multiculturalism. This holds that no culture is any better or worse morally than another. So for instance a repressive regime such as Iran’s or Afghanistan’s is to be morally equated with that of England or the United States. This equates theocracy with constitutional republics recognizing individual rights; the repression of women under the burqa with a modern western woman able to work, be educated, speak freely, dress how she wishes, and date or marry whom she pleases. It equates cultures which recognize the rights of homosexuals with those which kill them outright.

Some like the leaders in Iran aim to convert the world by the sword. Yet there is a massive demographic trend across the world which may convert the west without the need of a war between nations. This video, How Islam is Taking Over the World, outlines how demographic trends (immigration rates and differences in birth rates) are rapidly changing Europe and America from within. Another video addresses the same issue.

Iran is not the only Islamic or terror threat to the US. Islamists from other nations pose a threat as well. Despite claims to the contrary there have been many terror attacks on American soil since 9/11. Some may be directed from Iran, some from other countries; some may be inspired by US-born Islamic leaders. What they have in common though is Islam.

It’s time to stop pussyfooting around and realize that Islam is evil. Islam is not in some unknown manner correlated with terrorism; Islam CAUSES terror. It endorses and sanctions it. Why? One reason is the Koran holds that committing jihad, and dying in battle against infidels is the ONLY way to GUARANTEE entrance to heaven. In Christianity and other religions, one can get to heaven simply through personal belief. Islam is NOT just another religion.

On the contrary, Islam is a system of life that encompasses a religious component, but also prescribes details across life – politics, diet, work, marriage, commerce. Under Islam there is no separation of church and state; the “church” is all.

My goal here is indicate that Iran and Islam are major threats to the west. I aim to provide an introduction and some basic facts, rather than a comprehensive analysis and policy solution. The links above provide much more resources and details. Other good resources include:

The Ayn Rand Institute has excellent videos, lectures, books, and op-eds by Yaron Brook, Elan Journo, and others.

The Middle East Media Research Institute

Jihad Watch

AHA Institute run by Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Creeping Sharia

Bare Naked Islam (Note: Wordpress ordered this blog taken down, possible under pressure from CAIR. It is currently renamed "End Times Today.")

Other excellent authors include Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer.

So what should be done about Iran? The “peace process” and a series of negotiations and talks since 1979 have failed. Some argue that a policy of mutually assured destruction, which helped check Soviet power in the cold war, would work here. But that assumes all sides desire to live and care sufficiently to act rationally. I will not bet my life that Iran is a rational actor or desires to live – not when they explicitly claim they’d rather die than allow us to live; not when they openly embrace Islam and strive for a global caliphate; not when they believe in jihad.

After 9/11 Leonard Peikoff wrote an opinion piece calling for war with Iran. Perhaps that is now the only option.

Fans of Ron Paul should review this material and give serious thought to voting for him. His pretty good economic ideas are outweighed by terrible and dangerous foreign policy ones. Keep in mind that even if the economy improved the Islamic threat could accelerate rapidly. Iran could get a nuclear weapon. The “Arab Spring” – which has radicalized much of the Middle East and turned secular Libya and Egypt over to al-Qaeda associates and the Muslim Brotherhood, respectively – could continue to spread. The sooner Islam is dealt with the better. The longer we wait the harder it will be to handle, and the greater the chance of losing this war.