Reconsidering the Jewish Narrative of Poland

The Jewish narrative of Poland has historically centered on themes of anti-antisemitism, abuse and indifference to, if not support of the Holocaust. My research did encounter examples of systematic discrimination and pogroms carried out by elements of Polish society, but I did learn of the many Polish Catholics who lost their lives aiding their Jewish neighbors. In fact, Poland was the only country in Nazi Occupied Europe were execution was automatically applied to all Poles aiding Jews. Entire families and even whole villages were massacred for hiding Jews, resulting in the execution of upwards of 50,000 Polish Christians. In total 3,000,000 Polish Catholics, along with 3,000,000 Polish Jews perished during the nazi occupation. In spite of this severe decree, more Poles than any other nationality were awarded the title of "Righteous Among Nations" by the Israeli Government. One of the most awe inspiring stories is of Witold Pilecki, a member of the Polish Resistance who put together the plan to be captured by the Nazis (during a roundup) and sent to Auschwitz, for the purpose of providing a first hand account of genocide being committed against the Jews of Europe. After escaping he fought to dispel rumors among the allies that Nazi Atrocities against Jews were "exaggerations." After the war, he was arrested, tortured and executed by the puppet communist government of Poland. I encourage my fellow Jews to read up on the history of Poland and form a more complete and complex narrative on the History of Polish Jews.

Shocking Lack of Oversight of the Federal Reserve

The first thorough audit of the Federal Reserve by the Government Accountability Office, revealed that between December 1, 2007 to July 21, 2010, the Federal Reserve provided $16.1 Trillion in secret loans to bail out American and Foreign banks! For a break down of the loans, scroll down to page 131 of the report. The key issue is that this occurred with a shocking lack of transparency and oversight. This is not only a question of political principles, but of economics, because the Federal Reserve's expansionary monetary policies of the past decade played a key role in the formation of the housing bubble, whose collapse played a key role in the severe economic downturn that we are now facing. And the Fed enabled politically connected financial firms to engage in the socialization of loss and the privatization of gain, which progressives and free market conservatives alike find deeply troubling.

While some (dubiously) argue that this massive intervention helped salvage the economy, the lack of transparency and oversight allowed for clear conflicts of interest that reek of outright corruption. For example, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase served on the New York Fed's board of directors at the same time that his bank received more than $390 billion in financial assistance! And in 2008, William Dudley, who is now the New York Fed President, was granted a waiver to allow him to keep investments in AIG and General Electric at the same time the said firms were being bailed out. In addition, the Fed outsourced virtually all of its emergency operations, mostly through no bid contracts, to politically connected corporations, such as JP Morgan and Morgan Chase. This is a clear example of the crony capitalism that we once though was confined to the sclerotic economics of the third world. 

I am in complete agreement with Bernie Sanders that "no agency of the United States government should be allowed to bailout a foreign bank or corporation without the direct approval of Congress and the president." Because of a complete lack of transparency, the risk that these loans posed to American Taxpayers and the economy as a whole was not known. Nor was it determined to what extent were these loans driven by foreign influence in the Federal Reserve, that may have also constituted a conflict of interest. 

On a broader level,  the expansionary monetary policies that occurred surely required open congressional debate and oversight. Nonpartisan economists, with no conflicts of interest should have informed the congress and the public at large of the potential costs and benefits, risks and rewards of such bold monetary actions, before they were undertaken.  For such policies run the risk of generating inflation, debasing the dollar and a host of other unintended consequences. Directors of the Federal Reserve argue that they acted within the powers granted to them by the Federal Reserve Act Of 1913. Hence, Dr. Ron Paul is correct, not only must we expand the audit of the Fed, but we must also reconsider its role as the steward of the American Economy. Progressives and conservatives alike should question the wisdom of placing vital monetary decisions in the hands of a quasi-governmental agency beset with cronyism and conflicts of interest. Why this is not on the front page of every American Newspaper speaks very poorly of the media, or perhaps of the American People, whose vigilance is vital in maintaining the integrity of the economic and political life of our republic.  

Why Conservatives Must Oppose Military Statism

The core creed of modern conservatism is the maintenance of vigilance against big government, yet few conservatives recognize that its most wasteful and corrupt manifestation is seen in unchecked military statism.While I have nothing but respect for the brave men and women of our armed forces, the amount of waste that plagues the Department of Defense and other military bureaucracies is staggering. In fact on 9/10/2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared that the Pentagon was unable to track $2.3 TRILLION in transactions! The incestuous relationship between the military and politically connected corporations may very well constitute the most egregious example of corporate welfare and crony capitalism. Such a relationship provides powerful incentives for military related firms to lobby for aggressive foreign and military policies, even when such actions are contrary to national interests.

Bravo To Rachel Maddow?

I rarely agree with MSNBC Commentator Rachel Maddow, but I was quite impressed with her recent expose on President Obama's continuation of the Bush Administration's policy of "Preventative Incarceration" and "Indefinite, Prolonged Detention." Simply put, American Citizens who are deemed a threat can be incarcerated without formal charges, without due process for an indefinite period of time. The President stated that "there may be a number of people who can't be prosecuted for past crimes, but none the less pose a threat," which holds troubling implications. While I have zero sympathy for criminals and jihadists, due process and rule of law are fundamental to America's legal traditions and value system. Even the most despicable citizens should be subject to a swift and fair trial. If found guilty, they should be subject to the harshest punishment allowed  by the law and if found innocent, they should be freed. History shows that when the state is allowed to engage in unchecked "emergency measures," the liberty and property of its citizenry will not remain secure for long.

Illinois Debt Crisis / Why No Protests?

Wisconsin has been beset by major protests and a campaign to recall their governor, yet Illinois has remained virtually free from protests. This is puzzling, because according to Report on Illinois Debt, we are in far worse fiscal shape than Wisconsin. In fact our per capita debt level is three times greater than Wisconsin's. Illinois has the dubious record of: having the worst credit rating, the most underfunded pension system and the third worst business climate of all the states of the union and $8 billion in unpaid bills! This has resulted in a net exodus of businesses, tax payers and jobs. Chicago alone owes $63 billion and when we calculate the total debt and unfunded liabilities of the cities, counties and state, we are on par with Greece and Portugal! And unless dramatic measures are taken, we will continue down the classic debt spiral path, in which an ever greater portion of our budget will go towards servicing our debt, prompting weary lenders to raise their interest rates. Ultimately I believe that this dire situation has not promoted protests for two reasons: At least in the short run, vocal special interests, such as Illinois's public sector unions benefit from the status quo. And the simple narrative of good (public unions and students) vs bad (Wisconsin's Governor Scott Walker) are much easier to comprehend for the economically illiterate than issues of unfunded liabilities and capital outflows. 

They Hate Us For Our Freedom?

Ron Paul, The Last of the Truth Tellers

Virtually every politician tells the electorate what they want to hear, not what needs to be heard. No where is this more obvious than in the realm of foreign policy. The popular narrative that we were attacked on 9/11 because the jihadists "hate our freedom" does not stand up to critical analysis. I (unlike most of my progressive compatriots) fully acknowledge that the primary force behind the growth in radical Islamic movements is the violent, retrograde elements in Islamic Culture. Such movements emerged as a response to the failures of Arab Socialism and Nationalism to improve the lives of its citizenry and more importantly to redeem their honor by vanquishing Israel. Yet, clearly if the United States were not perpetually involved in the political affairs of the middle east, we would not be the target of their ire, or more specifically the convenient excuse for their continued economic, political and social failures. While our intentions may be beneficent, in  the world of foreign affairs, perception is reality and we are perceived by much of the Arab-Islamic world as crusaders and supporters of despots such as Hosni Mubarak and the House of Saud. One can despise us from afar for our differences, but will almost never actively engage in conflict unless we are foolish enough to meddle in their affairs. In other words, a major cause of the terrorist threat that we face is our imperial foreign policy. Dr. Ron Paul is one of the few politicians brave enough to acknowledge this highly unpopular position. The wisest course of action would be to trade with all and meddle with none. Listen to and learn from this short and very informative video.

Why Israel Can't Withdraw To Its Pre-1967 Border Line

It's amazing how the majority of Israel's western critics are unaware of basic strategic facts of the conflict. Specifically, withdrawing from all of the "occupied territories" would pose grave risks to the Israeli People that no nation on earth would accept. Here is a brief and interesting documentary that discusses some of these issues:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2hZ6SlSqq0

And those who believe that major territorial concessions on the part of Israel fail to note that prior to the 1967 "occupation" of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), the majority of the Arab-Islamic world actively sought the destruction of Israel. But, it's always easier to embrace sound bites and one dimension narratives than it is to engage in a thorough study of the historical, military and cultural facts that drive conflicts.