The Most Important man In America You May Have Never Heard Of-Part III

Published: Fri, 03/29/13

Home   |    About Dick Young  | 
 
In This Issue:
The Most Important man In America You May Never Have Heard Of—Part III By Richard C. Young
Spring Breakers! By E.J. Smith
I Want You to Be the Judge—The Real Deal By Richard C. Young
The Savage Combination Gun is Back  The Editors 

Young Investments Client Letter: Sign up to get the letter mailed directly to you by clicking here .
New February Client Letter: Dividends and the Bull Market
Dividends are a vital component of long-term-investment returns. This isn’t a recent phenomenon. Contrary to what many investors believe, dividends and the reinvestment of dividends have always played a leading role in common-stock returns. During bull markets, including that of 2012, dividends may seem like an afterthought, but over the last seven decades, dividends have accounted for an average of 60% of each decade’s stock market returns.—Read more by clicking here 
 
 
  
    Are you having trouble viewing or printing this email? Click here.

 
The Most Important man In America You May Never Have Heard Of—Part III
 

(Introducing The “Misery Club”)

It was 3 April 2002. A group of Project For The New American Century neocons were penning off a letter to President George Bush regarding aggressive American intervention in the Middle East. Among the signees were Bill Kristol, Eliot Cohen, Frank Gaffney, Bruce Jackson, Donald Kagan, Robert Kagan, Richard Perle, Norman Podhertz, Randy Scheunemann and James Woolsey. Some of these names may be familiar to you, but some like Scheunemann may not be on your radar. Well Mr. Scheunemann was a lobbyist for the country of Georgia, a mini player on the world scene that was nose to nose with the Russians in a nasty military dustup. Randy was also foreign policy advisor for John McCain and, for a brief time, Sarah Palin.

Here are a few high points from that infamous presidential correspondence:

“No one should doubt that the United States and Israel share a common enemy.”

“The United States should lend its full support to Israel as it seeks to root out the terrorist network that daily threatens the lives of Israeli citizens.”

“Mr. President, we urge you accelerate plans for removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. As you have said, every day that Saddam Hussein remains in power brings closer the day when terrorists will have not just airplanes with which to attack us, but chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons as well.”

Among the biggest agitators for war with Iraq was the neocon group listed above. With a 10-year war anniversary on the books, let’s look at how things have played out for America, what we have learned, and how we should prepare for the future based on that knowledge. For the record, I was against the Iraq war from the outset. America’s foremost foreign policy team, the Cato Institute group led by Chris Preble, was also no fan of the Iraq war.

In a nationally televised address, President George Bush told the American people that we went to war “to disarm Iraq, to free its people, and to defend the world from grave danger.” In an anniversary update , Cato V.P Gene Healy writes, “Ten years later, the future of ‘Iraqi Freedom’ is unclear at best, but it’s evident that there wasn’t much to disarm and the world was never in grave danger.”

Mr. Healy documents that in 2002, prior to the kick off of Operation Iraqi Freedom, all members of the Senate had at their disposal the 92-page National Intelligence Estimate on the Iraq threat. Would it not have been reasonable to assume that John Kerry, current secretary of state, and Hillary Clinton, former secretary of state, would have gone through the document with a fine-tooth comb? But no, neither, as Mr. Healy notes, took the time. Mr. Healy reports that exactly six senators read the report and that Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) said that the document made for “extremely dense reading.” Kerry, Clinton, Rockefeller—these are the people Americans want making decisions for the country?

So what does the Operation Iraqi Freedom report card look like? Gene writes, “A new report from the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University tallies up the costs: nearly 4,500 U.S. troop fatalities, an eventual budgetary cost of some $3.9 trillion, and more than 130,000 civilians as ‘collateral damage’.” The Brown report also talks of nearly $500 billion in unpaid benefits to U.S. veterans of the Iraq war that could balloon to over $6 trillion over the next 40 years.

Pat Buchanan writes, “Gen. Bill Odom, former director of the National Security Agency, thought George W. Bush & Co. had lost their minds: The Iraq War may turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in American history…. Of the three goals of the war, none was achieved. No weapon of mass destruction was found. While Saddam and his sons paid for their sins, they had nothing at all to do with 9/11. Nothing.”

Bill Kristol, Frank Gaffney, Robert Kagan, Randy Scheunemann and the neocon trumpeters have been proven wrong, yet the group, with a regular Fox News platform, is at it again this time beating the Iran war drums. The Defending Defense Project has been cobbled together to provide academic support. As Pat Buchanan notes, ‘What makes the question more than academic is that the tub thumpers for war on Iraq a decade ago are now clamoring for war on Iran. Goal: Strip Iran of weapons of mass destruction? All 16 U.S. intelligence agencies say Iran does not have and has no program to build.”

powerproblemEnter Cato Institute’s Chris Preble, author of The Power Problem: How American Military Dominance Makes Us Less Safe, Less Prosperous, and Less Free.

With the historical Iraq table now set, where can you go from here to be part of a nationwide effort to alter the course of American foreign policy? The goal is to prevent the sort of national disgrace associated with the debacles in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan (next Monday’s featured post). First you need to know who to rely on and who has historically proven to be untrustworthy as to the direction of America’s foreign policy initiative. Above is my checklist of the untrustworthy, a group I label as the “Misery Club.”  And as a quick add on, I do not want to neglect the inclusion of Sen. John McCain, (R-AZ), who has recently referred to Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) as a “wacko bird.” For my money, Rand Paul ranks #1 in the Senate. I will be expanding on the “Misery Club” next Monday. At the far other end of the spectrum, standing in solid opposition to the “Misery Club,” is the Cato Institute’s foreign policy team, led by Chris Preble.

In The Power Problem, Chris lays out a detailed tally of the rights and wrongs in American foreign policy. I have been through this great book twice, including a detailed look at Chris’s 34 pages of notes.  Regarding the safety of America and your family, this is the book you want to read first. I’ve about wrecked my hard copy with volumes of notes, scribbling in the margin, and underlining. Thus I have a second copy of The Power Problem on my iPad. As I have previously written, The Power Problem becomes more and more timely by the week as the errors of American policy, championed by the “Misery Club,” compound.

I have selected a top 10 outline for you from The Power Problem. My outline will give you a down and dirty check list for quick reference when you find yourself bombarded by neocon yak (Fox TV) from the “Misery Club.”

(1) The total amount that we spend on our military every year in the United States is roughly the same as the sum total of all defense expenditures by every other country on the planet.

(2) Even aircraft and ships designed in the 1980’s and built in the 1990’s are superior to what other countries can put in the air or out to sea today.

(3) Powell (Colin) was incensed by the implications that U.S. soldiers were geopolitical pawns that policymakers in Washington could move around some “global game board.”

(4) Often times, however, foreign interventions are not intended to advance U.S. interests; the interventions are, as their advocates suggest, ”gifts” intended for others. But because our government’s enumerated powers do not include the right to give such gifts—paid for by U.S. tax payers—Washington often attempts to justify such gifts on the grounds that U.S interests are at stake, even when they are not. The intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo in 1995 and even 1999 respectively, reflect this approach, as did calls for U.S. military intervention in Liberia in 2003, or in Sudan in 2006, or the absurd notion that these were crucial fronts in the “war on terror.”

(5) Even short relatively small-scale operations can prove extremely costly for those involved…. The mission in1992-93 in Somalia collapsed after a firefight in Mogadishu that left eighteen Army Rangers dead.

(6) It is essential that every weapon system, every proposal to increase size of the force, every plan for deploying our military abroad or for expanding operations already under way, be scrutinized anew.

(7) We need a new approach to military intervention grounded in a realization that even well-managed wars unleash a host of unintended consequences.

(8) What do we really need in terms of military capacity? I contend that we need enough to ensure our peace and security. We must be able to deter any state foolish enough to threaten the American homeland.

(9) If our physical security, our homeland, were under assault, if foreign armies set foot on U.S. soil for the first time since 1815, we can rest assured that every American capable of carrying a gun (and we have 200 million of them!) would make the foolish aggressor pay.

(10) As for the threat posed by terrorist groups and other non-state actors, 280 modern warships, 8,000 military aircraft, 30,000 tanks and armored personnel carriers, and more than 1.4 million men and women at arms did not deter nineteen angry young men (none from Iraq) from flying airplanes into buildings on 9/11; twice or three times that number of ships, planes and tanks would have been equally irrelevant.

Attach my 10-point Chris Preble outline to the five-point Weinberger/Powell Doctrine I wrote about last week and you have a straight-on template for American foreign policy. At the least, you will be able to follow along with the Cato Institute, Chris Preble, and Dick Young. And you will have a checklist of talking points when friends and associates mistakenly choose to promote you on the discredited thinking of the “Misery Club.”

Warm regards,

Dick

P.S. See Black Hawk Down. I was shocked by some of the things I learned from a Black Hawk technical advisor to the movie.

 

Related Posts:


>> read more
 
Spring Breakers!
 

Check this out before you check your bags. The FAA has determined which knives are safe to fly with. Isn’t that a relief? Happy travels!

10 Knives You can (Soon) Bring on a Plane

In a dramatic policy change, the Federal Aviation Administration will soon allow small knives on commercial airplanes. Starting on April 25th, airline passengers can carry pocketknives with small blades. We’re not talking tactical knives. Even most Swiss Army Knives are still banned. But the new rules allow small knives with blades of 2.36 inches or shorter to come into the cabin and travel in your pocket or a carryon bag.

Read more from Gearjunkie.com.

Related Posts:


>> read more
 
I Want You to Be the Judge—The Real Deal
 

Beef increases your risk for heart disease, says this well-circulated article by a couple of nationally known MDs. It is outlined that only 3.6 ounces of red meat daily can lead to a 42% increase in strokes for women than for women who eat less than 1.5 ounces per day. The noted culprit is saturated fat portrayed in the article as artery clogging.

First let’s look at the math here. One group is compared to a second group, so we are looking at relative numbers. For simplicity, I’ll substitute 50% for 42%. Let’s assume that a group of 1,000 women participated on each side of the study above. Now let’s assume that of the group consuming only 1.5 ounces of red meat a day, four have a stroke during the test period. Make yourself up a 1.5-ounce burger (a White Castle burger would appear a monster by comparison). No one eats 1.5 ounce of anything. OK, so I am being petty. Using the 50% “more likely” number, we conclude that of the 1,000 women eating 3.6 ounces of red meat daily, six (50% more than 4) would have a stroke during the test period.

Any influence group funding such a study would be correct in noting a 50% increase in strokes for the 3.6 oz. group versus the 1.5 oz. group. To promote cholesterol-lowering drugs, pharmaceutical companies are famous for using just such relative and misleading math. Once the fraudulent math is cleaned up, we can observe the absolute differential and draw a conclusion. In absolute terms, reducing a participant’s consumption of red meat to below White Castle proportions can theoretically save two strokes per 1,000 women.

Are we good so far? I’m telling you that ANY study that trumpets relative math as portrayed above should be, out of hand, dismissed. I would need to hear no more. With the basic math/premise in the linked article destroyed, there is zero reason to look further, but I am going to continue because the whole subject of red meat and saturated fat demands rigorous review. I will begin this review for you next Wednesday. In advance, I would like you read a little fat-eating wisdom from Ron Rosenbaum.

According to Mr. Rosenbaum, “There’s another world of fatty foods, a world beyond bacon and barbecue—not the froufrou fatty foods of foodies either, but basic, earthy, luxuriant fatty foods like roast goose, split-shank beef marrow and clotted cream. In the escalating culture war over fat, which has clothed itself in sanctity as an obesity-prevention crusade, most of these foods have somehow been left out. This makes it too easy to conflate eating fatty food with eating industrial, oil-fried junk food or even with being or becoming a fat person.”

Related Posts:


>> read more
 
The Savage Combination Gun is Back
 

Model-42"Disney just bought the Star Wars franchise for the exact same reason that Savage has finally re-created the Model 24 combination gun, CONSUMER DEMAND. Even though the generations may change dramatically, a great idea never stops being a great idea, and the idea of a rifle/shotgun combination was always a great idea. The new Savage is called the Model 42 and for now it comes in either .22LR or.22WMR over .410 shotgun. Comparing the engineers at Savage, circa 1939, to George Lucas, isn’t a big stretch surprisingly enough. The American public bought over a million Model 24s between its introduction in ’39 and sunset in the 1980s, and over the last several years the Model 24 has become extremely collectible. Everyone seems to want one, hence, the birth of the Model 42, which has an MSRP of $480, and street price substantially less. The original Model 24 was what many considered the ultimate “utility gun” back in the day. This Model 42 is still kind of the same gun, retaining the utility value, while taking advantage of modern materials and firearm design. We found the gun to be accurate, versatile, and downright attractive for a low priced utility gun. If you have been “watching” all the Model 24s that have come on to GunsAmerica, wishing you had bought them before they became collectible, the Model 42 is every bit as much gun as the Model 24, and it won’t kill you to throw it behind the seat of your truck." Read more from Gunsamerica.com here.

Fire Arm Details: Model 42

Series: Specialty
AccuTrigger: No
AccuStock: No
Magazine: N/A
Stock material: Synthetic
Barrel material: Carbon Steel
Stock finish: Matte
Barrel finish: Matte
Stock color: Black
Barrel color: Black
Sights: Adjustable

Features: Break-Open Combination Gun, 22 LR or 22 WMR over 410

Source: Savage Arms

Related Posts:


>> read more

Follow richardcyoung.com 
on Twitter
    
 

Our Strategy Reports
 
 

 

 
This Week's Featured Videos
 

VIDEO: Catch Up With Revolution.

 

 

Contributors   |   Media   |   Archives


Copyright 2011. All Rights Reserved.