Larwyn just forwarded some grand remarks about Obama's subservient bow. The blogosphere is where the action is at. The pissant media has been sprayed with pesticide. It's dead.
Don Suber: "Presidential aide to Politico: 'It wasn’t a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he’s taller than King Abdullah.'...It fooled the Saudis. Politico cited a newspaper columnist in Saudi Arabia, who wrote: 'Obama wished to demonstrate his respect and appreciation of the personality of King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz...'”
Gateway Pundit: "Bummer. It looks like the MSM will be forced to report on this now."
Atlas Shrugs: "Please see his left hand hanging in front of his thing."
Just One Minute: "The White House explains that Obama didn't bow to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. In fact, Obama noticed on the floor a plan to revive the global economy and cure AIDS and bent over to pick it up..."
Ace of Spades: "BTW- The whole Obama is taller thing? No sale. I'm 6"5' (real world, not fakey Internet height). I'm taller than a good 90% or so of people and I've never bowed low enough to check out a guys package while shaking his hand"
Jules Crittenden: "It Wasn’t A Bow...It was a posture malfunction."
Riehl World View: "This has to rank as the dumbest PR move this WH has made. Do they really believe they can control the media narrative so completely that they can say whatever they want and it'll become the ultimate record?"
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Obama's Subservient Bow
In recent months I have been blogging about the American republic's failure. Republicanism requires an informed citizenry and a committed culture. America's citizenry is ill-educated and bamboozled by "progressive"-dominated cultural institutions. American schools graduate illiterates who cannot grasp basic political issues, such as the central bank, that 19th century Americans with elementary educations had no trouble grasping. American education emphasizes Marx and Keynes, but ignores Locke and Jefferson.
As a result, medieval patterns appropriate to the Renaissance and before have recrudesced, and Americans have become comfortable with increasingly socialist values. Aristocrats like the Kennedys, the Bushes and the Clintons increasingly dominate politics. The two political parties represent charity and privilege, the two medieval political forces (church or charity and king or privilege). There is no individualist, freedom-based alternative. Thus, the philosophy that guided once-free America is dead and gone. In the view of today's neo-medieval politicians and social theorists, regulaton is preferable to freedom. Group authority and suppression are desirable, freedom is not.
The latest demonstration of America's increasingly medieval mindset and its betrayal of American republicanism is seen in Barack Obama's willingness to literally kowtow and bow to a foreign king. Not surprisingly, the media, which kowtows to Obama just as Obama kowtows to a king, has not covered this story. Obama does not display the spirit of a free American. He does not know what an American is. And the American news media does not know what a free press is.
Take a look at the repugnant video below, courtesy of Newsmax.
As a result, medieval patterns appropriate to the Renaissance and before have recrudesced, and Americans have become comfortable with increasingly socialist values. Aristocrats like the Kennedys, the Bushes and the Clintons increasingly dominate politics. The two political parties represent charity and privilege, the two medieval political forces (church or charity and king or privilege). There is no individualist, freedom-based alternative. Thus, the philosophy that guided once-free America is dead and gone. In the view of today's neo-medieval politicians and social theorists, regulaton is preferable to freedom. Group authority and suppression are desirable, freedom is not.
The latest demonstration of America's increasingly medieval mindset and its betrayal of American republicanism is seen in Barack Obama's willingness to literally kowtow and bow to a foreign king. Not surprisingly, the media, which kowtows to Obama just as Obama kowtows to a king, has not covered this story. Obama does not display the spirit of a free American. He does not know what an American is. And the American news media does not know what a free press is.
Take a look at the repugnant video below, courtesy of Newsmax.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Letter to Congressman Hinchey: The US Government Needs to Down Size
Dear Congressman Hinchey:
Why don't you and your fellow Congressmen deflate your puffed egos and reduce the federal budget by 50% or 60%? The recent bailouts are proof that you don't know what you're doing.
According to the Census Bureau, in 2007 the US government's direct expenditures or obligations were in excess of $2.5 trillion and other federal assistance, including direct loans, guaranteed loans and insurance, was almost $1.2 trillion. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Gross Domestic Product in 2008 was $14.3 trillion. Thus, US government spending is roughly (2.5 + 1.2) / 14.3 = 25.8% of GNP. This suggests that the federal government believes that 1/4 of the time it can make decisions that are better for society than private consumers can.
This past year has seen an escalation of federal government spending. It is hard to keep track of all the bailouts, subsidies, and handouts that the Bush-Obama administration and the US Congress have concocted, but it seems that these amounts substantially increase the percentage of Gross Domestic Product over which the federal government mistakenly imagines itself best fit to manage.
Rather, the 25% in 2007 was way too high. The federal government has proven that it is incompetent. The 25% should be slashed to the 10% it was in 1950.
If Congress has trouble deciding which government agencies to close, I have a suggestion. Since all government programs are useless, just cut randomly. After cutting the size of government to 10% of gdp, the next step would be to reduce taxation to 10% of gdp. Then people who are a lot smarter than you are, the American public, can begin to repair the damage that Congress has wrought. It will take many years because of your incredible stupidity and incompetence.
A 10% federal budget would still be 10% too high, but it would be a step in the right direction.
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert
Why don't you and your fellow Congressmen deflate your puffed egos and reduce the federal budget by 50% or 60%? The recent bailouts are proof that you don't know what you're doing.
According to the Census Bureau, in 2007 the US government's direct expenditures or obligations were in excess of $2.5 trillion and other federal assistance, including direct loans, guaranteed loans and insurance, was almost $1.2 trillion. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Gross Domestic Product in 2008 was $14.3 trillion. Thus, US government spending is roughly (2.5 + 1.2) / 14.3 = 25.8% of GNP. This suggests that the federal government believes that 1/4 of the time it can make decisions that are better for society than private consumers can.
This past year has seen an escalation of federal government spending. It is hard to keep track of all the bailouts, subsidies, and handouts that the Bush-Obama administration and the US Congress have concocted, but it seems that these amounts substantially increase the percentage of Gross Domestic Product over which the federal government mistakenly imagines itself best fit to manage.
Rather, the 25% in 2007 was way too high. The federal government has proven that it is incompetent. The 25% should be slashed to the 10% it was in 1950.
If Congress has trouble deciding which government agencies to close, I have a suggestion. Since all government programs are useless, just cut randomly. After cutting the size of government to 10% of gdp, the next step would be to reduce taxation to 10% of gdp. Then people who are a lot smarter than you are, the American public, can begin to repair the damage that Congress has wrought. It will take many years because of your incredible stupidity and incompetence.
A 10% federal budget would still be 10% too high, but it would be a step in the right direction.
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert
America Is No Longer A Moral Nation
Americans remember that their nation was "conceived in liberty" but tend to forget that liberty was based on morality. Morality is not the same thing as charity. A thief can donate his booty to charity, but he is not moral. Aristotle argued that there are moral as well as intellectual virtues. The moral virtues in Aristotle's view were justice, temperance, prudence and courage. Morality, then, depends on justice. Justice means that each producer receives a fair return, and that no producer receives an unearned return.
The Founding Fathers' morality was linked to the Aristotelian philosophy. Liberty in the sense that it once existed in America depended on justice. This was the underlying assumption of John Locke's Second Treatise on Government on which the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were based. Governments are formed for the just reason of protecting life, liberty and property from violence.
The morality of justice is in turn dependent upon truth. For without a willingness to examine the truth justice is not possible. One cannot receive a fair reward if one is not willing to truthfully examine the contribution one has made.
Ever since the beginning of the Republic a sizable contingent of Americans fought the idea of justice. These Americans wanted the public to subsidize them. The way that they were to be subsidized was through the power to create paper money.
Because of the inherent morality of the 19th century American public, the public rejected this attack on moral values. In 1836 President Andrew Jackson abolished the Second Bank of the United States, the precursor of today's Federal Reserve Bank. The American people of 1836 were too moral to tolerate the fraud associated with the central bank.
In the 1930s John Maynard Keynes proposed an economic system whose foundation is the commission of fraud. Employees would be fooled into accepting lower wages through inflation. The nation's universities would be called into service to perpetuate the fraud by claiming non-existent economic expertise that justified the fraud. The media, already controlled by banking and Wall Street interests, were also called into service of the fraud.
The American people could no longer call themselves moral. For the people did not oppose the fraudulent issuance of bank notes. They did not oppose the transfer of wealth from productive labor to speculator and banker because they were afraid. They were afraid of deprivation because the mass media told them to be afraid. They feared for their security. They trusted experts whose motives were corrupt and whose ideas were merely warmed over and elaborated versions of the same claims that banks had made previously.
America stopped being a moral nation. It could no longer claim justice as the foundation of its ideology. And where justice dies, freedom is sure to follow.
A little dishonesty and a small decline in morality are likely to be followed by ever greater lapses. A little cheating is observed, and then someone does a little more. America has become a nation governed by immoral people. Its economy no longer encourages productivity. Its ethical base has deteriorated. Instead of justice, its ideology is theft. Wal-Mart is excoriated for reducing costs. Goldman Sachs is subsidized for stealing and reducing Americans' standards of living.
A nation that has rejected morality and has rejected justice is sure to deteriorate into the kind of nation that favors charity and stealing. Such a society existed in Europe in the Middle Ages. The socialist economy will see decline to the primitive backwardness of the Soviet Union and pre-Tudor England.
The Founding Fathers' morality was linked to the Aristotelian philosophy. Liberty in the sense that it once existed in America depended on justice. This was the underlying assumption of John Locke's Second Treatise on Government on which the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were based. Governments are formed for the just reason of protecting life, liberty and property from violence.
The morality of justice is in turn dependent upon truth. For without a willingness to examine the truth justice is not possible. One cannot receive a fair reward if one is not willing to truthfully examine the contribution one has made.
Ever since the beginning of the Republic a sizable contingent of Americans fought the idea of justice. These Americans wanted the public to subsidize them. The way that they were to be subsidized was through the power to create paper money.
Because of the inherent morality of the 19th century American public, the public rejected this attack on moral values. In 1836 President Andrew Jackson abolished the Second Bank of the United States, the precursor of today's Federal Reserve Bank. The American people of 1836 were too moral to tolerate the fraud associated with the central bank.
In the 1930s John Maynard Keynes proposed an economic system whose foundation is the commission of fraud. Employees would be fooled into accepting lower wages through inflation. The nation's universities would be called into service to perpetuate the fraud by claiming non-existent economic expertise that justified the fraud. The media, already controlled by banking and Wall Street interests, were also called into service of the fraud.
The American people could no longer call themselves moral. For the people did not oppose the fraudulent issuance of bank notes. They did not oppose the transfer of wealth from productive labor to speculator and banker because they were afraid. They were afraid of deprivation because the mass media told them to be afraid. They feared for their security. They trusted experts whose motives were corrupt and whose ideas were merely warmed over and elaborated versions of the same claims that banks had made previously.
America stopped being a moral nation. It could no longer claim justice as the foundation of its ideology. And where justice dies, freedom is sure to follow.
A little dishonesty and a small decline in morality are likely to be followed by ever greater lapses. A little cheating is observed, and then someone does a little more. America has become a nation governed by immoral people. Its economy no longer encourages productivity. Its ethical base has deteriorated. Instead of justice, its ideology is theft. Wal-Mart is excoriated for reducing costs. Goldman Sachs is subsidized for stealing and reducing Americans' standards of living.
A nation that has rejected morality and has rejected justice is sure to deteriorate into the kind of nation that favors charity and stealing. Such a society existed in Europe in the Middle Ages. The socialist economy will see decline to the primitive backwardness of the Soviet Union and pre-Tudor England.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
