The American people were strongly opposed to the bailout bill which would have spent $700 billion dollars that the federal government does not have. The strange thing about what happened yesterday was that the congress actually listened to their constituents. The stock market didn’t like the fact that major companies were going to be able to sell their steaming piles of crap to Uncle Sam and the Dow dropped 777 points by the end of the day.

Amazingly the sun rose this morning and just about everyone who had a job yesterday went to work today. As I write this the Dow is trading up 290 points so it seems that even Wall Street may not experience the Armageddon that Bush, Paulson, Pelosi, Bernanke, and every other elite was predicting. It’s true that credit will get somewhat tighter and that the stock market may move even lower, but while these things might not be pleasant, they’re the healthy correction to the bubble that the entire US economy has been in.

Many in the mainstream media will talk about tightening credit as if its some kind of dread disease, despite the fact that easy credit helped get the economy into trouble. I hope that credit DOES tighten to a reasonable extent. The US economy has been artificially pumped up by easy borrowing. Not just home loans have been too easy to get lately. Main street runs up credit card debt to buy things that they can’t afford and probably don’t need while the US government runs up a massive debt and funds its wars through borrowing. America as a whole has adopted a “spend now, pay later” attitude. This can’t be fixed by yet more borrowing and the creation of even more funny money. It needs to come to a more gentle end now rather than being inflated even more for another decade.

No one wants to see the credit markets freeze entirely, because that would certainly drag down the whole economy, but it hasn’t happened yet and if talking heads like Paulson & Bernanke weren’t out there predicting doomsday in the absence of a bailout, then the risk of such a scenario might be even lower than it is now. This bailout was a distinctly Fascist piece of legislation. I’ve even heard intellectuals calling for a “Third Way” reform of our economic system. While that’s an amorphous term it accurately describes the Italian Fascist & Nazi economic systems in addition to the less controversial examples that advocates of a mixed market will cite.

Yesterday was a triumph for advocates of free markets and the democratic process and it was a day when people’s true colors were shown. A Republican Senator from my state voted for the bailout and was a leading voice predicting calamity if it failed, while the two Democratic Representatives in the house voted against the legislation.  I have no doubt that the power brokers in Washington will try to revive a bailout, especially because the American people will realize just how inept these people are if the economy doesn’t totally implode as they predicted.

PETA activists sometimes come across as being a little bit loony and caring more about people than animals. They’ve really ratcheted up their reputation as loonies with a recent request they made of Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream. Their modest proposal? That Ben & Jerry’s should consider using human breast milk in lieu of cow’s milk for their ice cream products. Tasty.

Of course PETA was trying to make a point in that shrill and arrogant manner that they always do. The fact is that some people advocate the humane treatment of animals because, well its the humane thing to do, but many hard core “animal rights” activists go a lot further. They’d like to outlaw the killing of animals for any reason, whether it be food, leather, medical research, or pest control. They would like to outlaw the practice of keeping animals such as chickens and dairy cows for byproducts like milk and eggs. There are even people out there who believe that human beings should not keep pets.

The fact is that the domestication of wild plants & animals allowed civilization to emerge, and while a rational argument can be made for the benefits of voluntarily choosing a vegetarian lifestyle, it seems to me that many of these people don’t like civilization very much. The radical environmental lobby engages in some of the same attacks on mankind. There are people out there who actually believe that mankind deserves to die out, or should at least return to living in mud huts without fossil fuels or electricity.

Anyone who will seriously advocate totalitarian measures to reduce the global population, should lead by example. They could certainly illustrate their commitment to their principles by removing themselves from the rest of us selfish air-breathers.

There are many good people who advocate responsible stewardship of the environment and the humane treatment of animals with good intentions and the insanity of a few activists certainly can’t reflect on everyone who espouses these ideas. However it is important to remember that while people calling for the destruction of civilization & human kind under these banners are few in number, they are very vocal. No matter how bad an idea is a few committed individuals can win converts unless more rational people call them out.

With the failure of the bailout bill and the shaky situation on Wall Street, many people may feel afraid that they won’t be able to get a home or auto loan. Fortunately, consumers with strong credit ratings and debt repayment histories are still able to get loans for home and auto purchases. Banks are now issuing loans with standards–in other words they’re no longer lending to people who are very clearly in a position to default–but the typical home and auto buyer can still obtain a loan and make a purchase.

Maybe so, but you’ll have to shop smart to find the cash you need at a price you can afford. The key to consumer credit markets now is this: standards are back. Lenders are no longer throwing money at people who can’t prove they can comfortably pay it back. That means that the first step in the borrowing process is making sure your credit report is squeaky clean. If there are problems, start fixing them before you shop for money. Do that by paying down credit-card balances and giving any late payments time to vanish into the past. Then ask yourself if you really want to borrow money now.

In fact, for many people, this is the perfect time to save up a decent down payment and make the move into home ownership. Home prices are lower than they’ve been in years and for people who have been renting or own a house that they can’t afford, this is a great time to buy. Sure, it may be difficult to sell off that McMansion, but once you do, you can still put yourself into a nice, decently sized home with an affordable pricetag.

Yes, the problems with lenders do mean that it will be difficult, if not impossible, for subprime borrowers to get a loan–and that’s ok. Home ownership isn’t the right path for everyone.  If you feel that it is the right path for you but you simply can’t afford it, work hard and wait a few years. Save your money, keep your credit clean and soon enough you’ll be ready to buy. If you can’t afford a bare minimum 5% down payment then you can’t afford the extra costs associated with home ownership such as maintenance and the dreaded property tax. That doesn’t mean you won’t be able to afford those things in the future. It just means that you should wait to make your purchase until you’re in a more financially stable position with a healthy future outlook.

Space is no longer solely the realm of government funded space agencies. SpaceX is a privately funded space flight company, and they’ve just had their first successful rocket launch into space. They had previously attained suborbital flight with the launch of SpaceShipOne, and now the company believes that they’ll put one of their Falcon rockets into Earth orbit next year.

Some people question whether governments should be funding space exploration with tax dollars when there are people back on Earth trying to stretch their paychecks, and others are starving on the streets. I think that its a legitimate question, and no where in the US Constitution does the government have the authority to fund scientific research or exploration. Companies like SpaceX make it increasingly likely that private endeavors will come to surpass government funded space programs.

There are some very compelling reasons that people can give for exploring space. There are natural resources present in space that simply are not available here on Earth. Space exploration does lead to new scientific discoveries that can be applied back on Earth. In the long term, a human presence in space could open up a new frontier for social, cultural, and political experiments and act as an insurance policy for the survival of the human species and any others that are brought along for the ride. These potential benefits have long been used to justify NASA’s budget, but there are reasons why private space exploration could bring these things about faster and cheaper.

A government space agency is run by government, and so many of the things that it does don’t actually serve a practical purpose, but serve as propaganda moments. Take the later Apollo missions where a great deal of time was spent posing for photos and playing golf on the Moon. This was a great way to flaunt US superiority over the Soviets in space, but wasted precious time that could have been spent learning more about the Moon. A private company would have to focus on completing tasks that are worthwhile. In other words, they would have to make a profit.

Scientific data that is collected by a private firm in space could be applied to research and development back on Earth. A private firm that collected new information about Mars or Venus, could make money by publishing a book on the subject, and the scientists who worked on that mission could undoubtedly get paid speaking engagements or future positions at universities. In the long term, private companies would attempt to find a profitable way to return physical resources from space. Like other companies, a space industry would be looking for sustained growth. It would be unlikely that private companies would take a 40 year break after placing a man on the Moon for example.

The best way to establish a significant human presence in space is to allow entrepreneurs to make such an endeavor profitable. Only in this way can space exploration become self sustaining and truly successful. Government programs have made progress, but slowly and at great expense to people who don’t benefit in any tangible way from space exploration.

The first presidential debate between John McCain & Barack Obama only drew an average number of viewers, according to early numbers. The debate received a household rating of 34.7 from Nielsen. That means that 34.7% of households in major media markets were tuned in, based on some preliminary rating information.

This is not a very high number when compared to ratings for past presidential debates. The highest rated first presidential debate ever was between Reagan & Carter in 1980, and pulled in a household rating of 58.9. I am not surprised that most Americans don’t seem to be terribly excited by their choices this year. While the mainstream media seems to be playing up the notion that this is an historic election in which most Americans feel deeply invested, the people I know personally aren’t too enthusiastic. I certainly know a few folks who think that Obama will be the best thing since sliced bread, and a few who are in support of McCain because they are scared of Obama. Other than a few partisans, I’ve found that most people are not impressed with either candidate, and they feel that both candidates will lead the country in the wrong direction.

A voting public which views the Republican & Democratic candidates as “two evils” is nothing new, yet unfortunately many Americans are still too timid to vote for a third party. The media frames the campaign as a choice between candidate A and candidate B, so people feel that voting for candidate C is somehow a waste of their vote even when they agree with a third party or independent candidate more. If people would just vote their conscience when they went to the polls, the Republicrat duopoly would not be nearly so entrenched.

I’m beginning to doubt that any serious positive reforms will come from the voting process, particularly in a nationwide race for President. Anti-war activist  Cindy Sheehan has come out calling for a tax revolt. It may sound like a drastic measure, but then the Federal government is drastically overstepping its constitutional limits, and if the politicians cannot be made to represent the people and respect the constitution through the voting process, then the traditional process is ineffectual and the government’s authority is illegitimate. Voting between two political parties that are part of the same establishment and paying the taxes to support their programs will not bring about anything but more of the same.

There have been a number of incidents along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border over the past few weeks, since a September 3rd US raid which Pakistan claims caused civilian casualties, but the US is confirmingsuch an incident for the first time. According to the US version of the story, a Pakistani military outpost opened fire on a US helicopter which was patrolling on the Afghan side of the border. US & Afghan forces responded by firing at the Pakistani outpost. The US claims that the small arms fight lasted for 5 minutes and neither side is reporting any casualties.

Pakistan claims that the helicopter was flying on the Pakistan side of the border, and that it only fired flares at the helicopter. I have no idea which story is accurate, and both sides may honestly believe their accounts because the exact location of the border is disputed. Regardless of how this particular incident played out, it is clear that the United States is conducting operations inside Pakistan, and that the government of Pakistan is not very pleased with this.

The US has denied or downplayed any shootings along the border until now, and US officials are still trying to say that Pakistan is a “friend” and “ally” in the war on terrorism. Allow me to respond by saying that when another country’s military is shooting at your military, that is not the best definition of an ally. Washington officials clearly want Pakistan to be friendly to US military incursions, but that does not make it so.

While many in the US press are likely to take a position that is opposed to Pakistan’s actions, they appear to be fairly reasonable to me. There are certainly radicals within Pakistan’s military who probably do harbor some feelings of support for the Taliban & Al-Qaeda, but the US is exacerbating this feeling by sending troops into Pakistan, sometimes (according to Pakistan) without asking permission first. The moral justifiable duty of any military or militia is to defend the nation which they serve, namely by keeping other armies off its soil. If Mexico used its military to pursue drug dealers or terrorist in the United States, perhaps killing American civilians in the process, the United States would certainly fire on the Mexican forces.

The tensions on the border represent a dangerous potential for an escalation in hostilities between the US & Pakistan, and a wider middle eastern war. If there is any good news on this issue, its that Pakistan has a record of not turning border disputes into wider wars. India & Pakistan have fought over the disputed zone of Kashmir for decades, but never did either country flat out invade the other and attempt to take it over. I am honestly more worried that the US may overreact if any NATO troops are killed in a fight with Pakistani forces.

While capitol hill is still buzzing with debate over the proposed $700 billion dollar bailout for the financial sector, yesterday the house passed a $630 billion dollar spending bill. Of this massive sum, the Pentagon got a record $488 billion, Homeland Security got $40 billion, veterans programs got $73 billion, and troubled US automakers got $25 billion dollars in low interest loans. The numbers are staggering and show just how much our military machine costs year after year. There were a number of smaller appropriations in the bill, and those who want details can read the source article here.

I am becoming increasingly convinced that most people will not wake up to the dangers of this runaway spending until its too late. If the financial bailout passes, we’ll see the real effects of a weak dollar very soon. Governments which overspend eventually destroy their currency and the economy . The most severe examples are Germany after the first world war and the continuing economic crisis in Zimbabwe. A more likely scenario for the United States is what happened to the Mexican peso. When one thinks about Mexican immigrants who are willing to face arrest or even death in the desert to work in the United States, it puts the seriousness of inflation into perspective.

The fact is that the peso and many other currencies can and have been put back on the right track when the people and their government decide to end inflationary policies, and I hope that this will be the case in the United States. The Federal Reserve System is the United States’ third and longest lasting attempt at a central bank. Free market economic theory has always predicted that a fiat monetary system will eventually implode due to inflation, and that is being borne out. It is the Federal Reserve that enables congress to deficit spend, destroy the value of the US Dollar, and pass this obligation on to the taxpayers. Its time for sound money again, but for that to become a reality those of us who have a firm grasp of monetary policy need to educate our friends and neighbors.

The big news coming from Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty today is that Ron Paul is endorsing Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party. The statement, issued by Ron Paul, referred to Bob Barr’s absence at Ron Paul’s third party press conference. It also responded to the Barr campaign’s accusation that Ron Paul had shown a lack of leadership in not endorsing a single candidate by concluding:

“I’ve thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election.  I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.”

Clearly Ron Paul felt that Barr’s last minute no show at the Campaign for Liberty press conference was a personal insult. In my opinion it also indicated a somewhat predictable lack of statesmanship and selfishness on the part of Bob Barr. If quasi-socialist candidates like Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney can put aside their differences with Libertarians and Constitutionalists, and support an effort to end aggressive wars and audit the federal reserve, one would think that Bob Barr could have swallowed his pride and shown up as well. Barr dealt a blow to the cause of liberty in America, not to mention the Libertarian Party and his own campaign.

I’m not sure many were expecting Ron Paul to actually flat out endorse Baldwin, but it was already clear that he and most of his supporters were not very happy with Bob Barr. It should be noted that Barr has signed on to Ron Paul’s 4 point plan for third party candidates, so he is still has a vicarious endorsement in the sense that he’s a better candidate than McBama, and Ron Paul has not issued marching orders saying that his supports need to spurn Barr in favor of Baldwin, although the more loyal Ron Paul people will definitely vote based on this endorsement.

There are a number of issues where libertarians are going to disagree with Baldwin and the Constitution Party platform. It seems as though there are issues where Baldwin is more clearly libertarian than Barr, and others where Barr has a more libertarian position, but in the aggregate they seem about the same.  The key difference is that Baldwin doesn’t claim to be a libertarian, whereas Barr does, so it seem as though Baldwin has less explaining to do on the areas where he diverges.

Personally I believe that people ought to vote unless their conscience dictates that they shouldn’t. Some people believe that by not voting, they don’t endorse the system, and therefore they’re the righteous few. In terms of strategy this is just a dumb idea. Most people don’t vote, and quite honestly the politicians don’t care if there’s low turnout or not, and they’d prefer it if pro-liberty people stayed home. I’m not going to give any endorsement to a particular candidate, but I think that Baldwin, Barr, Nader, or McKinney would all be better choices than McCain or Obama. The two party voting game won’t result in more liberty or political choice for Americans, and I hope the third parties affiliated with the candidates who’ve signed on to the Campaign for Liberty’s plan, shatter vote total records this year.

The Army Times is reporting that the 3rd division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team will be on call for domestic missions as part of Northern Command. From the training mentioned in the Army Times article, it sounds like the unit is preparing for a role as a police force in the event of another major disaster, like Hurricane Katrina. Since the end of reconstruction after the Civil War, it has been illegal under US law to use federal military forces on US soil. The Military Commissions Act repealed this protection, and now the President can authorize active duty forces to patrol the streets of America, whenever he deems it necessary.

Why it would be necessary to use active duty military personnel in the United States is not addressed in the Army Times article, and it troubles me to say the least. Governors in individual states can already activate the National Guard and State Guard, not to mention the fact that civilians and emergency personnel can handle all but the most critical emergencies without the assistance of armed forces. The unit in question also happens to be a combat unit, not a logistics or transport outfit.

It sounds crazy to say, but it looks like this unit is on standby to act as a federal occupation force. State militias and more recently the semi-federal National Guard have historically been effective in putting down armed rebellion when it has been necessary, but I suspect that the expanding police state has some in Washington questioning whether these state forces can be counted on to act against their neighbors on the orders of the federal government. I never thought I’d be saying something like that, but then again, I never actually believed that the US Army would have units assigned to patrol American streets. It’s getting ugly out there.

Things have been changing on wall street at an incredibly fast pace over the past two weeks. Lehman Brothers went bankrupt and Merrill Lynch was absorbed by Bank of America, and now the last major independent investment banks have decided to change their status to bank holding companies. Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs will be accepting more regulation and restrictions on the debt that they can carry in exchange for loans and discounted interest rates from the Federal Reserve.

This move sends a scary signal for a couple of reasons. First, the Federal Reserve was already giving emergency loans to investment banks, but this was scheduled to stop in January. These companies were widely believed to be healthy until very recently, but now it appears that they are concerned that they may not be able to keep doing business without having a lifeline to the Fed. It also appears that these companies are expecting these problems to persist or get worse, after January of 2009.  This is a vote of no confidence in any government plan to bailout the economy.

It seems that much of the US financial sector is being nationalized/socialized almost overnight, and while we may look back at this moment as a turning point towards overt socialism one day, I hesitate to label it “the end of an era” because that implies that the US has had a free market until now. The United States was not a free market by any means prior to these recent changes. The Federal Reserve has existed since 1913, and its mission has always been to control the US economy by manipulating interest rates and the money supply. Proponents of central banks argue that the Federal Reserve manipulating the market is beneficial and reduces volatility in the market. This claim seems to be contradicted by the fact that there have been nine US recessions since 1913, including the Great Depression, 1970’s stagflation, and the burst of the dot com bubble in addition to our current problems.

With the exception of the world wars and the Great Depression, the United States economy is more widely and tightly regulated by government than ever. This is not surprising because the natural tendency of governments is for them to grow until they either collapse under their own weight or are radically reformed. The sudden lurch of the US financial sector towards a socialist model is just a continuation of the trend towards greater state control of the economy. This trend is likely to continue at an increasingly rapid rate until the system collapses, or radical reforms such as abolishing the Fed are undertaken.