Since the Roosevelt era, it has been long assumed that Keynesian economics, basically Govt. spending on a huge scale, cured the Great Depression. It has been a long used mantra of the Democratic Party because their motivations were spending and redistribution. Those who know a bit more about economics will clarify that it was not spending that ended the Great Depression, but rather World War II.
Think about it–suppose you were to borrow a large sum of money via multiple credit cards. You then took that money, and rather than spend it on your own small business, were to squander it on comic books and snack foods. Sure, this will help the manufacturers of said items in the short term. But what happens when the credit runs out? Well….shhh…don’t tell the President, but it means you are broke. And while you might still want to buy comics and junk food, you are penniless. To the Keynesian the solution is to try and open up new credit cards and spend freely, hoping that at some point a miracle will happen and you will be hired by Hostess. The truth of the matter is, you are simply moving money around, and aquiring debt in the process. Eventually, your credit runs out and you are worse off than before.
If most people instead took their own money, and perhaps had a tax cut to increase the amount of money they actually had (after all, Govt is a sink hole where money goes to die) and invested it in a small business, and hired some employees, your chances of increasing your money personally increases. Of course, employed people and businesses also pay more taxes than the unemployed, so the amount of money going to the Govt naturally increases as well.
The falsity of Keynesian economics is one perpetuated by ivory-tower thinkers who have never run a business of their own. President Barack Obama is in that group. These people have a hard time fully understanding the basics of how things run, and how Capitalism increases economic activity, and how Government and taxation spoils economic activity. They think the “money tree” is debt, but it is actually small and large business that produces money via production of goods and services. Naturally, when a dollar is produced via business, that business in turn may reinvest a portion of that money on employees, expansion, or retooling. Govt spends the same money on more employee benefits with a zero sum gain.
The election of Barack Obama has exposed Leftism for what it is: basically a “pie in the sky” belief in false principles that don’t work in the real world. The President has done something that the Conservatives have had little luck in promoting, basically the falsehood of Governement as savior. Mr Obama has instead shown Government spending and taxation, and Keynesianism for what it is—the destroyer of nations.
I found it laughable that during the G8/G20 summits that the President seemed to be a man alone. European leaders, who are struggling with long-term Socialist and Keynesian principles basically told him to “go blow” as he talked about the need for spending Trillions more on so-called “Stimulus”. At the same time one might also have been scared by Obama’s stance, as it made clear his complete incompetence and shallow intellect. This man, who was to be the glory of Leftism, may instead prove to be it’s inevitable destroyer. His blind loyalty to ideology, his lack of introspection and self-correction, these are the qualities of a Dictator.
The President, if he were as brilliant as he thinks he is, would understand that slavery is a bitter pill to swallow. It takes time and a good portion of honey (provided by the media) to slowly lull the uninformed masses to bear the yoke. Instead, this foolish man has rushed out and spoken of his unlimited power, grabbed the American citizen by the wrist, and struggles to lock on the cuffs, while shouting, “You are acting…stupidly!”.
The shockwaves of this will linger for generations. And it will be spoken of in History books, about the grand dictatorial vision of a small man with oratory capability who tried to ruin the greatest nation on Earth to prove a “theory”, Keynesianism, and failed.
So-called “Peace Protestors” beat the hell out of members of the IDF. I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but I would have shot them, too.
It never fails to amaze me at the Hypocrisy of the media and the “World Community” in relation to Israel.
We recently learned of North Korea sinking a South Korean ship, which by any test would be an act of war by the thuggish dictatorship. The media response? It was reported with a sluggish yawn.
When Israel is forced to deal with issues dealing with it’s own security, the hypocrisy is ramped up to levels unknown to any thuggocracy. Anti-semitism? You bet.
Would we allow a flotilla of possible terrorists from Pakistan float down the Hudson river without searching their boats, at the very least? No, we would confront them, ask them to stop, and if they refused we would blow them out of the water. At least that is what would have been done before President Barack Obama’s “Open hand” strategy.
I know the argument is that the Gaza was given to the “Palestinians” and they should be able to rule as they see fit. The problem here is that Israel had strict conditions about giving them this land, and since it was released, Gaza has been used to launch attacks on Israel.
Does any country need to abide by pacifism via world edict? The answer is no. But if a country uses force, they must face the heat such actions present. In this case, Israel was simply guarding itself from threat, and they have the right to self-preservation.
Historically, one needs to understand the background of Israel and it’s reformation to understand the country and it’s rights.
To simplify things a bit, first of all one must understand that the land on which the Jews inhabit has been the land of the Jews far into antiquity. And the land was actually much greater than the size of Israel today. The Roman’s called the land Judea (Ludaea) or in reference to the land of the Jews. At one point this included parts of Syria and Jordan, during the time of Solomon.
The word “Palestinian” comes from “Philistia” which was actually considered more of a name for a land mass, but not one of any particular ethnic origin. If anything, the “Philistines” (you might remember they fought Samson) were more Greek than Arab in origin.
Of course, and the argument will be made, that borders and land switches hands over time, and this is certainly true.
In 63 BC, the Roman’s conquered just about everything in that area of the world. However, it was still considered the “land of the Jews”. It was the first “First Jewish revolt” (66-73 AD) that led to the Jews being rejected from the heart of Judea. Rome then supplanted foreign peoples into that area, in an effort to suppress further uprising.
But were these new residents Arabs? Historian Mary Smallwood, writes: “The bulk of the new settlers were Greco-Syrians.” So they were of Greek origin from the area of Syria–this does seem to support the fact that the “Palestinians” (Philistines) were Greek.
To make a long story short, the land eventually fell into the hands of the Ottoman turks, and finally Britain. It was basically then returned to it’s original inhabitants (the Jews), and the areas we know of as the Judea and Samaria, which were renamed for politically correct reasons to the West Bank and Gaza. This certainly helped give the so-called “Palestinians” (basically now a mish-mash of refugees having Arabic origin) a foothold. After all, it is pretty hard to say that Judea (the west bank) was never the home of the Jews, because the name says it all.
Today, the “Palestinians” use “occupied territory” to talk about Judea and the rest of Israel. Their intent is to push the Jews into the sea, and for what reason? Because they are not Arabs.
Yet the world seems to side with the Palestinians, because a good many people in the world continue to hate Jews, if not for being “God’s people” then because they flourish in the desert, and were able to defeat the Arab world in the 1967 “6-day war”, which shamed them.
The key here is that Israel is on the land which it inhabited for millenia. The Palestinians were actually greeks, and a good portion of land was given to the Arabs when the League of Nations reformed Israel, yet they want more–actually they want it all, and all Jews dead.
Yet the media will never speak of this. They will inflate this incident into Israel being a bully. Self-defense is against the bullies, not BY the bully. Watch the above video and tell me that the IDF were not being attacked in an orchestrated way with people who had weapons on the ready. Who just finds steel bars laying around on a ship?
Remember, this is about weakening Israel and disarming it. In this way, it can be destroyed. If the world really were just, wouldn’t they be going after Iran?
Obama tours the carefully manicured Fourchon, La. beach. Who did the cleaning prior to his trip? His contributor, British Petroleum. Would the President have walked down an oil covered beach and gotten his shoes dirty? Signs point to no.
Aqua performing what could be Barack Obama’s theme song at this point. Enjoy!
His hair is always perfect, his shirts white and pressed, buttoned to the top. His complexion perfect from the application of skin creams, he walks the beach recently cleaned by hundreds of BP employees rushed there for his pleasure; this President seems to not like to get dirty. Can anyone see the President changing the oil on his car?
Beyond his apparent metrosexuality, Barack Obama also does not seem to like the “dirtiness” of dealing with people. Unlike George Bush, who spent his time cutting trees and clearing brush from his Texas land, or Ronald Reagan who enjoyed riding horses on his ranch, this President seems sealed in cellophane spiritually, emotionally, and politically. Unlike Bush, who went to ground zero after 9/11 and stood amidst he rubble with a megaphone, this would not be acceptable–Obama would need a professional audio system and teleprompter, and without one, he would feel such a speech as “beneath him”.
Barry doesn’t like to get dirty.
Sure, the President doesn’t have a problem misusing people or even destroying them if it meets his purpose. But it never seems that he wants to do it himself. This is why he has people like Raum Emmanuel. And I am sure that he doesn’t want the trouble of having to deal with selecting who gets axed and who doesn’t–he leaves it to others.
Barry’s first rule of fight club–let others fight in fight club.
During his time in Illinois’ State Senate, his most common vote was “present”. To take a stand or show leadership, at least at this point, seemed too troublesome.
Consider “Obamacare”: Sure, the President sold it, but he never seemed to care what was in it. He simply let others do that, it was too much trouble. As long as the overall bill was within his required standards of Marxism–he would support it. However, he never wanted to do more than give speeches. He didn’t want to have to deal with the “dirt” and never did.
Psychologists would say that Barry is suffering from “narcissistic personality disorder”, would you agree? The symptoms:
■ Believing that you’re better than others
■ Fantasizing about power, success and attractiveness
■ Exaggerating your achievements or talents
■ Expecting constant praise and admiration (Barry? no!)
■ Believing that you’re special and acting accordingly
■ Failing to recognize other people’s emotions and feelings
■ Expecting others to go along with your ideas and plans
■ Taking advantage of others
■ Expressing disdain for those you feel are inferior
■ Being jealous of others
■ Believing that others are jealous of you
■ Trouble keeping healthy relationships
■ Setting unrealistic goals
■ Being easily hurt and rejected
■ Having a fragile self-esteem (doesn’t like criticism)
■ Appearing as tough-minded or unemotional
The President recently gave his first press conference in ten months, and even the press (who had given him a pass from “day one”) is beginning to see that the Emperor has no clothes. Obama doesn’t like to be challenged or questioned. It might make him feel “dirty”.
The term used to be called “Candy-ass”, but in reverance for the office of President, I will simply say that the President is “candy-coated”. And beneath that thin candy coating seems to be a man who cannot understand his common man. He seems to be the same sort of automaton that he asked his supporters to be, but with a belief he is the messiah of Marxism.
Am I the only one who longs for the days of “real men” and “real” Americans? The John Wayne’s, the Teddy Roosevelt’s, the George Washington’s and General George Patton’s? Surely these men would be comfortable enough in their own skin to lead rather than be led, and to act for the good of country, with the humility to know that most things are greater than their own egos.
The candy shell for all it’s sticky sweetness–seems to be cracking.
This video of Dick Morris on “Hannity” makes a powerful point: Can a President ignore Federal law and the Constitution for poltical gain?
Morris makes a great point when he notes that the “Chicago politics” of illegal bribery via power-mongering cannot be allowed to extend into the Federal realm. It is bad enough in Chicago, do we want a nation run in this way?
I recently had a bit of an argument with a friend on Facebook about Obama. She said that he was a nincompoop who deserves little in the form of histrionics to define him. Basically, she was saying that Obama was a foolish “light weight”. But can we say that about a man who is willing to use and misuse every Presidental power to irrevocably change our nation? I think it would be a mistake to underestimate either his radicalism or his ability as given to him by the people and a Congress with the power to enforce his will.
A President who is willing to break the law is dangerous. A President steeped in radicalism with an “Get it done for Marxism” credo is something that should be challenged. Sure, we cannot assume that he has pure Dictatorial power, he doesn’t, yet. But he is setting a precident–if you can get it done, do it and disregard the electorate.
These people know a few things that are pretty terrifying: They know that if they control Congress, they can pass just about anything and disregard ethics, law, or future challenge. They hope to pack the courts with radicals who will support their changes. They also know that the media will support them, or in the very least ignore their vicious attack on America. They also assume weakness from their opponents; the Republicans are fearful of full-blown Conservatism, as evidenced by the faux breed such as David Brooks and David Frum, or for that matter “consensus builders” like Lindsey Graham or John McCain.
Will the media pursue a scandal greater than any under Bush? I highly doubt it. Will Republicans charge Barack Obama with “high crimes and misdemeanors”? Or do they fear the media calling them racists? Personally, I wonder.
Nation is greater than individual power or gain. The people are greater than the elected. But given the power we have so wrongly provided them, Congress and the President feel they are Kings and Queens, not Representatives.
We need to change their minds. We need to let them know the fear of misusing their offices at the ballot box. And once ejected, we must enforce the rule of law and monitor our new policians closely. We cannot affford to resume our long sleep, or that sleep will become a coma.
In a speech given at the University of California San Diego, David Horowitz is asked a barely disguised question by a member of the “Muslim Student’s Association” (MSA).
Horowitz plays this well, as his first question is, “Do you condemn Hamas?”. When the student refuses to answer, it is pretty obvious that she is one of the Jew-haters. It is very powerful how tolerant Liberal colleges are of downright racial hatred as long as it comes from a group that a) They fear and b) goes against the Presidential “war on terror” by George W Bush.
The dirty little secret is that the Left is filled with hypocrites and cowards. This was exposed when Comedy Central censored an episode of “South Park” where Muhammed was depicted disguised in a bear suit.
When the Left talks about free speech, they don’t really mean it. They mean “condoned and acceptable Liberal speech”. And since a pretty fair number on the Left hold now love for Jews or Israel, this young lady’s hate speech is deemed acceptable.
Would a member of a White Supremacist group be allowed to study at any University if they were to call for a new Holocaust? While many of the Left would probably agree with them, if ever so slightly, they would immediately expel that student. Why? Because they do not fear “white America” and further, they have been told that said groups are not considered Leftist enough for them. Even if said group was all Democrats, it wouldn’t be tolerated. The PR is just too much for even them.
The Left will expose their anti-Semitism via code words such as “Zionist” or “Neo-Conservative”. When you hear or read these words, they are code words for “Jew”.
What’s funny is that this woman actually promotes, “Hitler youth week” during her question. Is she really so different from David Duke or members of the Aryan nation? No, their goals are the same.
Horowitz brings the event and question to a head when he asks the woman if she agrees with the head of Hezbollah, who said he wishes that the “Jews would move to Israel so it would save them the time hunting them down”. He then said, loudly, “For it, or Against it??” And she responded, “For it”. In other words, she agreed that she wants all the Jews in one spot so they can be exterminated.
This is a very telling video. What it tells us is that their is a very virulent bunch of Muslims living in our own nation that hate Israel, hate Jews, and in turn hate that nation’s greatest ally, the United States. The media will not show this clip to you, nor will the President talk about it–it would dispel their fantasy about the “Religion of Peace”.
We are slowly lulling ourselves to sleep and awaiting the next attack. I fear that it will come sooner rather than later.
Much of Barack Obama’s life has been criticized as a Sham, and his actions seem to constantly reinforce people’s suspicions, be they real or fictitious.
Just look at the case of the “Birthers” who believe that Barack Obama was not born in the USA and hence is unable to hold that office. The Birthers should be a group that would be easy to shut up, simply put out your birth certificate to be examined by the media. The President has still not done this. He seems convinced that the word of a couple of Hawaiian croneys should be enough. They have sealed his records and refuse to let anyone look at them, stating it is for reasons of “identity theft”. Does anyone really think you could get away with pretending to be Barack Obama? Seriously?
The fact that the President’s greatest “Birther” detractor is a Democrat doesn’t help either, or that he has defended these records at the cost of over $200,000.
Just end this, Mr President. Shut them all up and get on with your failed Presidency. Why not?
The issue of the President’s college records are also up for speculation.
Perhaps the fact that “Dumb George Bush” had better grades at Yale than Al Gore and John Kerry make him worry.
What is more concerning is the fact that the Professors that Barrack Obama worked with state he was “never a Professor of Law”, and it also appears that he never published any while at Harvard, as would be required of an actual Editor of the Harvard Law Review, a position he appears to actually HAVE held.
Barack Obama seems to be a living sealed document, his only true records of achievement being his two autobiographies, and many believe he did not even write those.
And how was he viewed by his colleagues during his years as “Professor”? According to the highest tenured member of the Chicago Law school:
The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool. According to my professor friend, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (publication is or was a requirement).
It seems that Barack Obama truly is a “self-made” man, or rather he made himself up.
Is this report of racism by the Tea Party true? You tell me. In the above video you see members of the Congressional Black Caucus crossing through the Tea Party crowd. I have watched this several times and have not seen any of the following:
1. Racial slurs being uttered toward the men.
2. Sexual slurs being uttered.
3. Anyone spitting at the Congressmen.
It seems strange in that in the Youtube era that we would not have a single video clip supporting the claims leveled toward the Tea Party in Washington DC.
Considering that most of the crowd disdains such behavior, it could also be said that we would have at least one person who saw or heard the actions of one or two “nuts” in the crowd doing something as atrocious as racial mistreatment or spitting. It just hasn’t happened.
Yet it seems that every media outlet is reporting this account of the story by Congressman Andre Carlson:
“It just happened on the way to votes. Coming out of [Cannon Building]…John Lewis’ chief of staff came with us. It was just the three of us walking down the steps. ‘Kill the bill, Kill the bill…n-word,’ fifteen times,” he said. “Capitol Police finally became aware and began protecting us.” The video above was taken as Reps. Lewis and Carson emerged from Cannon today towards a crowd of protesters, and racial epithets from the crowd appear to be absent from the scene captured.
So where is the proof of this? Or is it yet again a Saul Alinsky tactic? I am leaning toward believing it is just a tactic, and one that is very common by the Left.
The lesson to learn from this is that we must be on guard against the Leftist media’s tactics. They will demonize those they disagree with. And it might be in ways you might not expect. They might simply take a photo or short video clip of a speaker at a Tea Party dressed in “dated garb” of the era of the founding fathers, simply trying to make them look like an idiot. They will not let you hear what they have to say, they will simply demonize–it’s what they do best.
Realize that it took little more than a joke by Sarah Palin about seeing Russia from her “back window” to define her as stupid. One would think that people would be smart enought to know a joke when they hear it, right? But they used it effectively.
This is why we must be beyond reproach.