Conservative Chloe responds to my blog on Sarah Palin, Anti-Semitism and Jewish Prejudice here. Her thoughts follow:
The reasoning behind the anti-Semite questions surrounding first Senator Obama and more recently Gov. Palin are not only important to Israel and the Jewish community in America, but for every citizen living in the United States. God clearly states in the Bible, “those who bless Israel will be blessed, those who curse Israel will be cursed.” We must accurately assess each candidate’s intentions toward Israel not only for their safety as an ally, but to secure our blessing and protection as a Nation.
In Dr. Langbert’s blog post ‘Sarah Palin, Anti-Semitism and Jewish Prejudice’ he addressed allegations made by others that Gov. Palin may be an anti-semite for attending a church where an alleged anti-semite spoke. She also was accused of attending a function with Pat Buchanan, whom many affiliate with anti-semitism. The first allegation is in regards to a group ‘Jews for Jesus’ that were not vetted and spoke at her church. She was in attendance. I have looked into this group and from what I saw on their website they are not anti-semitic and in fact appear to be the opposite. For those wanting to research here is their link: http://www.jews-for-jesus.org/. They observe all the Jewish holidays and yet believe that Jesus is their Lord. They invite both Jesus believing Jewish people (I believe that is Messianic Jew) and non-believing Jewish people. It appears they are evangelizing to the Jewish community. If they were anti-Semites, they would not care about saving the Jewish community and leading them to the Lord. While many in the Jewish community may be offended by this, that is the very nature of Christianity. To share Jesus with others who do not believe in him. In a statement by David Brickner clarifying the incident:
I want to thank those of you who have commented either here or in e-mails in response to the media furor over my remarks at Wasilla Bible Church on August 17th. The comments attributed to me were taken out of context. The notion that the terrorist, bulldozer attack in Jerusalem this summer was God’s judgment on Israel for not believing in Jesus, is absolutely not what I believe. In retrospect, I can see how my rhetoric might be misunderstood and I truly regret that.
Of course I never expected the kind of magnifying glass scrutiny on a message where I was speaking extemporaneously. Let me be clear. I don’t believe that any one event whether a terrorist attack or a natural disaster is a specific fulfillment of or manifestation of a Biblical prediction of judgment. I don’t believe that the newspaper should be used to interpret the Bible. The Bible interprets the Bible.
I love my Jewish people and the land of Israel. I stand with and support her against all efforts to harm her or her people in any way. Please feel free to read my further explanations, in my Realtime article and in the interviews I did with Christianity Today and NBC.
Sincerely,
David Brickner
Another attack against Gov. Palin is she “once” appeared at an event with Pat Buchanan. I found Gov. Palin’s explanation of this “incident”, it was reported:
Palin wrote a letter to her local newspaper making clear that her appearance at the Buchanan event wasn’t an endorsement of his candidacy. Published July 26, 1999, the letter said:
“As mayor of Wasilla, I am proud to welcome all presidential candidates to our city. This is true regardless of their party, or the latest odds of their winning. When presidential candidates visit our community, I am always happy to meet them. I’ll even put on their button when handed one as a polite gesture of respect……” (www.politicofact.com)
In an Arab news article (arabnews.com) in regards to Gov. Palin meeting with Israeli officials it was also noted: “Palin displays an Israeli flag in her office window despite the tiny Jewish population in her state.”
Sounds like the media was making a mountain out of a molehill in an attempt to cast doubts on Gov. Palin’s sincerity when it comes to her support for Israel and the Jewish community. It is one thing to have one incident of a suspected association that turns out to be false. It becomes an issue when a Presidential candidate sits in the pew of a church for 20 years listening to a Pastor’s diatribe about his dislike not only for Jews and Israel, but also for his own Country.
There is a very large and very successful attempt in America and in Israel to repair relations between Christians and the Jewish Community. Many organizations have been established to rekindle a relationship that was damaged shortly after the crucifixion of Jesus when the Romans convinced Christians that the Jews were the ones who killed Him (when in fact it was the Roman Empire). This led to the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, a Holocaust in which most Christians turned their backs on their Jewish brothers and sisters.
Now the Christian community has opened their eyes to the Jewish community and realizes they are an ally, and not an enemy. The distrust in the eyes of the Jewish community is substantiated given the track record of people who are supposed to believe in a loving Jesus. But while this attempt has seen the fruits of its labor under such organizations as Christians United for Israel and other organizations, there is an attempt to undermine the process.
Progressives and anti-Semitic groups in America (mainly the pseudo-intellectual community) and abroad will do anything and everything to undermine the process or anyone supporting the process. They view a united Christian/Jewish coalition as very dangerous to their efforts to annihilate Israel. It is their tactic and attempt to pit those working in this relational effort against one another (a tactic many times used by Satan himself). I assure you we will continue to see this type of reckless behavior from the liberal media, other countries and anyone opposing Israel’s right to exist as a Nation.
In a comment in response to Dr. Langbert’s defense of Gov. Palin someone stated:
Protestant Church? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. This church is an Apocolyptic bunch of whacked end-timers, they speak in tongues and do demonic exorcisms! They are Creationists who deny absolutely every shred of science. You talk like these guys are Methodists. They are outside mainstream Christianity as Scientologists! You either have absolutely no knowledge of Protestantism or you will defend Republicans no matter how ridiculous the argument is.
It is interesting to note that a person who thinks the Christian community is crazy because we don’t support evidence-based scientific theories (emphasis on theory) and yet has dismissed the scientific backings of intelligent design/Creationism findings is truly ignorance. There is much data and research archaeologically, geologically, biologically etc. to back up intelligent design/creationism. People who think we are ignorant for believing a different set of scientific data and research just as concrete if not more so than evolution which is also backed up by a very large book that has been more accurate then any Darwinist ideal are by their very nature deceived. Or maybe just demon possessed and in need of exorcism.
If this person thinks we are a bunch of apocalyptic wackos well, I guess he/she will just have to wait for the apocalypse to see who is right. And he better be right that we are a bunch of wackos because the alternative will not be to his/her advantage.
For those wackos looking for the science to back up intelligent design:
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/
http://www.allaboutscience.org/intelligent-design.htm
Friday, October 10, 2008
JammieWearingFool On the New York Times
I don't usually fuss over the New York Times because they've been dead to me ever since they sided with Robert Moses about the Cross Bronx Expressway. But JammieWearingFool offers a classic observation on New York's Progressive Propaganda sheet (that favors estate taxes on all and everyone with the exception of family trusts that own newspapers) (h/t Larwyn):
Shocker: 'Paper of Record' Discovers Fraudulent Obama Donations
The New York Times is playing a little CYA here by actually reporting on the massive campaign fraud by the Obama campaign in accepting donations from thousands of suspect sources. It would be nice if this were front page news rather than being buried on page A24. When they made up the story about John McCain supposedly having an affair with a lobbyist, that was front and center on page 1.
Read the whole thing here.
Shocker: 'Paper of Record' Discovers Fraudulent Obama Donations
The New York Times is playing a little CYA here by actually reporting on the massive campaign fraud by the Obama campaign in accepting donations from thousands of suspect sources. It would be nice if this were front page news rather than being buried on page A24. When they made up the story about John McCain supposedly having an affair with a lobbyist, that was front and center on page 1.
Read the whole thing here.
Federal Reserve Bank as Archaic Fetish
In the past seven decades the field of economics has claimed to be able to "manage the money supply" to prevent booms and busts. As well, the questionable institution of fractional reserve banking has relied on repeated government support and bailouts. These include the lending fiasco surrounding commercial banks' support of the Hunt Brothers' attempt to corner the silver market in 1980 (which ended not because of the threat of regulation as I have heard on television but because the Hunt brothers defaulted on a 650 million dollar futures contract with Englehard Mining, resulting in massive defaults on the commercial bank loans that were supporting their frivolous effort) as well as the Long Term Capital Management fiasco. Much worse than either of these has been the Fed's ongoing subsidization of the financial sector of the economy through monetary expansion and the working of destructive political deals with foreign governments that will cause grievous harm to these developing countries. Hedge fund managers and Wall Street executives have contributed no value to the economy, have extracted large salaries and have used the edifice of the liberal media to justify themselves.
The economics profession has claimed expertise that it does not have. The economics of public policy is a smoke screen to justify providing bankers who destroy rather than create value with enormously bloated salaries, to falsely boost the stock market and allow hedge fund managers to extract wealth from a naive public.
The economists who for seven decades have claimed that the gold standard is an antiquated relic have to face the failure of their policies. The elegant edifice of macroeconomic planning has turned out to be a chimera. The Federal Reserve Bank is a failed institution. It is an archaic fetish.
The fetishizers of central banking, the very interests that have benefited from the bamboozling of the American public, will undoubtedly argue that a 68% increase in the monetary base over one month and a trillion dollar bailout of institutions that have been extracting Americans' wealth and perverting economic incentives for seven decades are necessary.
We would do well to recall that the most fertile economic period was the one from 1830 to 1913, when there was no central bank. Real wages increased, innovation occurred at a fever pitch, much greater than in the declining twentieth century, and there was deflation. Yes, deflation. While employment levels were skyrocketing, unemployment was low and innovation was exploding, businessmen and real estate speculators complained endlessly about "depression". What they meant by depression was that profits were too low. Today's historians, reading the frequent discussions of "depression" in the 1870s, 1880s and 1890s conclude that there were low wages. They are wrong. Wages were escalating and unemployment was low in the gold standard/no central bank period. But profits were "depressed" and firms kept complaining about profits. Remarkably, immigration exploded during the late nineteenth century, yet there were enough jobs for the immigrants at wages that were much, much higher than 40 years previous (say 1889 versus 1849).
The economist David Ames Wells discusses all this in his book "Recent Economic Changes" published in 1889. Historians know about the book, but they either ignore it or don't bother to read it, because it contradicts everything they tell you about laissez-faire America. Wells, incidentally, was commissioner of revenue under Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson.
Thus, the gold standard made real estate speculators, stock speculators and bankers poorer than they have been under the Fed. But it made workers richer. Fraudulent quacks like Paul Krugman go around saying that taxes are necessary for lower income inequality. But income inequality was declining in the late nineteenth century, about which today's historically ignorant economists are unaware.
It is time for the American people to wake up to the fact that there is no legitimate field of "macroeconomics" and that the entire edifice of government-subsidized finance is a scam that has been instituted to steal money.
The economics profession has claimed expertise that it does not have. The economics of public policy is a smoke screen to justify providing bankers who destroy rather than create value with enormously bloated salaries, to falsely boost the stock market and allow hedge fund managers to extract wealth from a naive public.
The economists who for seven decades have claimed that the gold standard is an antiquated relic have to face the failure of their policies. The elegant edifice of macroeconomic planning has turned out to be a chimera. The Federal Reserve Bank is a failed institution. It is an archaic fetish.
The fetishizers of central banking, the very interests that have benefited from the bamboozling of the American public, will undoubtedly argue that a 68% increase in the monetary base over one month and a trillion dollar bailout of institutions that have been extracting Americans' wealth and perverting economic incentives for seven decades are necessary.
We would do well to recall that the most fertile economic period was the one from 1830 to 1913, when there was no central bank. Real wages increased, innovation occurred at a fever pitch, much greater than in the declining twentieth century, and there was deflation. Yes, deflation. While employment levels were skyrocketing, unemployment was low and innovation was exploding, businessmen and real estate speculators complained endlessly about "depression". What they meant by depression was that profits were too low. Today's historians, reading the frequent discussions of "depression" in the 1870s, 1880s and 1890s conclude that there were low wages. They are wrong. Wages were escalating and unemployment was low in the gold standard/no central bank period. But profits were "depressed" and firms kept complaining about profits. Remarkably, immigration exploded during the late nineteenth century, yet there were enough jobs for the immigrants at wages that were much, much higher than 40 years previous (say 1889 versus 1849).
The economist David Ames Wells discusses all this in his book "Recent Economic Changes" published in 1889. Historians know about the book, but they either ignore it or don't bother to read it, because it contradicts everything they tell you about laissez-faire America. Wells, incidentally, was commissioner of revenue under Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson.
Thus, the gold standard made real estate speculators, stock speculators and bankers poorer than they have been under the Fed. But it made workers richer. Fraudulent quacks like Paul Krugman go around saying that taxes are necessary for lower income inequality. But income inequality was declining in the late nineteenth century, about which today's historically ignorant economists are unaware.
It is time for the American people to wake up to the fact that there is no legitimate field of "macroeconomics" and that the entire edifice of government-subsidized finance is a scam that has been instituted to steal money.
Phil Orenstein's "Barack Obama Is Herbert Hoover"
Phil Orenstein posts a first-rate blog at Democracy Project, my previous blog home. Phil makes the point that Herbert Hoover raised taxes, regulation and public works in response to the stock market crash, and he is concerned that if Obama gets elected, he will do the same thing. Phil is right that increased socialism, taxes and government intervention would prolong the psychological malaise and harm the country in the long run. Those who feel that Senator Obama cares about humanity might consider that Herbert Hoover, who oversaw the birth of the Great Depression, had similar policies to Obama and, like Obama, saw himself as a "progressive" who loved humanity. Hoover's successor, Franklin D. Roosevelt, prolonged the deprivation caused by Hoover's socialistic policies. By the commencement of World War II, 11 years after the stock market crash of 1929, the depression was not over.
At this point in time, the country has painted itself into a corner. We can choose among (i) a major correction, unemployment and firm bankruptcies followed by a new round of inflation, (ii) hyper-inflation and the dislocation that it would cause and (iii) long term stabilization of monetary growth via a gold standard.
The source of the current problem is the Federal Reserve Bank and big government. Inflation has been causing a decline in innovation, a decline in real wages and transfers of wealth from production to Wall Street and banking for the past 75 years.
Ultimately, the field of economics and "economists" are responsible for this in the sense that they have provided the ideological cover for the looting of the public purse in which the banking system has engaged. Economists claimed that they knew how to manage the economy via the Fed, and now they have turned out not to have known. A banking system that requires massive subsidies and monetary inflation does not function. This is the product of the economists who run the Fed.
The economists who are responsible for the current situation have scoffed at the gold standard, calling it a fetish or nonsense. Alan Greenspan started out in life supporting the gold standard, but then realized that he could become more famous and successful by advocating Keynesianism, and he did so.
Is a trillion dollar subsidy to the banking system superior to a gold standard? Might we not conclude that the Federal Reserve Bank is an antiquated fetish?
At this point in time, the country has painted itself into a corner. We can choose among (i) a major correction, unemployment and firm bankruptcies followed by a new round of inflation, (ii) hyper-inflation and the dislocation that it would cause and (iii) long term stabilization of monetary growth via a gold standard.
The source of the current problem is the Federal Reserve Bank and big government. Inflation has been causing a decline in innovation, a decline in real wages and transfers of wealth from production to Wall Street and banking for the past 75 years.
Ultimately, the field of economics and "economists" are responsible for this in the sense that they have provided the ideological cover for the looting of the public purse in which the banking system has engaged. Economists claimed that they knew how to manage the economy via the Fed, and now they have turned out not to have known. A banking system that requires massive subsidies and monetary inflation does not function. This is the product of the economists who run the Fed.
The economists who are responsible for the current situation have scoffed at the gold standard, calling it a fetish or nonsense. Alan Greenspan started out in life supporting the gold standard, but then realized that he could become more famous and successful by advocating Keynesianism, and he did so.
Is a trillion dollar subsidy to the banking system superior to a gold standard? Might we not conclude that the Federal Reserve Bank is an antiquated fetish?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
