H/t Dennis Sevakis.
PO Box 130
West Shokan, NY 12494
April 24, 2011
Senator Lindsey Graham
Washington Office
290 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Graham:
You are out of line to say that the speech or expression of book burners ought to be suppressed. While I agree that book burning, including of the Koran, is wrong, federal and local governments do not have the right to suppress speech. In choosing between your three wars versus respect for free expression, I emphatically choose the latter. Your wars have yet to produce value; you destroy value through your socialistic intolerance.
Your attitude toward freedom of speech has solidified my view on your three wars: all three need to be brought to an end now. And as far as Pastor Terry Jones, although I agree that he is wrong to burn the Koran, anyone who thinks that Dearborn or any other city has the right to arrest him is NOT AN AMERICAN. Benjamin Franklin wrote, "Where liberty is, there is my country." You sir, reside elsewhere, as do Dearborn's goons.
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.
PO Box 130
West Shokan, NY 12494
April 24, 2011
President Barack Obama
The White House
Washington, DC
Dear President Obama:
The recent detention of a pastor who burned the Koran is a hateful, suppressive act illegally perpetrated by Dearborn's government. While it is desirable to be respectful to all religions, you as president ought not to play a role in establishing a religion, in suppressing freedom of speech, or in making light of hate crimes against Jews while fetishizing much less substantial ones against Muslims. The US Constitution does not permit you to establish a religion.
Recently, in the context of Operation Enduring Freedom, the US military burned Bibles. You have established your indifference to Christianity; as well, you have violated the establishment clause of the US Constitution.
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Obama's Employment Policies Have Failed Because of Quack Economics
I was just reading the recent edition of Gerald Celente's Trends Journal. Celente lives in Kingston, New York, which is about 1/2 hour from my home. Celente makes a good point about unemployment numbers. They don't count the people who have stopped looking for work. Therefore, a more meaningful statistic than the unemployment rate is the employment rate.
Here's some numbers. The employment numbers are as of January while the population numbers are as of July:
Employment is still below what is was following the financial paroxysm of 2008-9. The so-called stimulus package in early 2009 involved Obama's spending nearly a trillion dollars to increase employment. Besides the idea being nonsensical, the Obama administration spent billions on handouts to cronies, including George Soros's Brazilian oil holding. The net effect will be to reduce employment over time. In 2009 the employment rate was about 46.3% (my numbers are off somewhat because I took the employment and population estimates from different months). Today, two years after the Obama stimulus the employment rate is roughly 45.1%, more than one percent lower.
Of course, the Obama administration needs to take responsibility for taking the ridiculous idea of a "stimulus" seriously. As we study in elementary economics, the justification for a stimulus would be that the marginal propensity to consume is lower than the government's ability to spend money. This occurs because consumers save. But American consumers don't save. Moreover, the entire notion of the stimulus is dumb because the spending will cause future taxes to rise, dampening economic growth. It is outrageous that the public has been conned into subsidizing the crackpot theories of Keynesian economists.
The economists who recommended squandering the $800 billion have to bear responsibility for the failure of Obama's policies. They have no more claim to the status of having "scientific knowledge" than do astrologers or fortune tellers. Since economics is a failed profession, we can safely exclude economists from any public office, including the Federal Reserve Bank. Quacks deserve jobs as snake oil salesmen, not on the public dole.
As far as Obama, whatever absurd policies he and his quack advisers have concocted, we can conclude that he is a failure in the economic realm.
Here's some numbers. The employment numbers are as of January while the population numbers are as of July:
Employment is still below what is was following the financial paroxysm of 2008-9. The so-called stimulus package in early 2009 involved Obama's spending nearly a trillion dollars to increase employment. Besides the idea being nonsensical, the Obama administration spent billions on handouts to cronies, including George Soros's Brazilian oil holding. The net effect will be to reduce employment over time. In 2009 the employment rate was about 46.3% (my numbers are off somewhat because I took the employment and population estimates from different months). Today, two years after the Obama stimulus the employment rate is roughly 45.1%, more than one percent lower.
Of course, the Obama administration needs to take responsibility for taking the ridiculous idea of a "stimulus" seriously. As we study in elementary economics, the justification for a stimulus would be that the marginal propensity to consume is lower than the government's ability to spend money. This occurs because consumers save. But American consumers don't save. Moreover, the entire notion of the stimulus is dumb because the spending will cause future taxes to rise, dampening economic growth. It is outrageous that the public has been conned into subsidizing the crackpot theories of Keynesian economists.
The economists who recommended squandering the $800 billion have to bear responsibility for the failure of Obama's policies. They have no more claim to the status of having "scientific knowledge" than do astrologers or fortune tellers. Since economics is a failed profession, we can safely exclude economists from any public office, including the Federal Reserve Bank. Quacks deserve jobs as snake oil salesmen, not on the public dole.
As far as Obama, whatever absurd policies he and his quack advisers have concocted, we can conclude that he is a failure in the economic realm.
Music Video: How Federal Reserve Bank Policy Works
Glenda R. McGee asked me for a pictorial depiction of how the Federal Reserve Bank and world monetary system work. Fortuitously, Dennis Sevakis sent me this Rube Goldberg music video that captures the essence of current American economic and monetary policy.
Vote Libertarian in 2012
The Obama presidency has worsened the Bush administration's mismanagement of government and the economy. Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal reported that President Obama aims to extend the profligate spending that he and the Democratic Congress budgeted in 2008 and 2009 with only slight reductions. Although the Republicans have pushed for modestly greater reductions in spending, even the most conservative budget this year will exceed the Bush administration's bloated budget by ten percent. Moreover, contrary to his campaign claims, Obama has extended military involvement overseas and has continued the Patriot Act.
Today, The Wall Street Journal reports that the GOP's 2012 presidential playing field is blurry. That is, no candidate can command much support. Astonishingly, 16% of Republicans support Donald Trump, a dishonest, eminent domain socialist who was born on third base and cannot figure out how to reach home plate without government subsidies, looting of private property, cheating contractors and repeated bankruptcy. Someone needs to investigate whether Trump has received financing from organized crime in connection with his Atlantic City investments. Trump exemplifies the failure of the American economy under Progressivism, and he is a product of the stupid Federal Reserve Bank policies that led to the 2008 financial meltdown, have stopped the growth of the real hourly wage and guarantee that future generations of Americans will be much worse off than previous ones.
With 16% of Republicans supporting Trump, an additional 13% support Governor Mitt Romney. Romney implemented a failed socialist health plan in Massachusetts, and his policies are largely the same as Barack Obama's. As a presidential candidate for 2012, his first impulse was to aim to attempt to win financial backing from the same socialist Wall Street slime that finances Trump, that supported Obama in 2008, that received trillions in welfare payments in 2009, and that would not exist without ongoing welfare subsidies from the Federal Reserve Bank.
Now, Americans are loyal to the two party system for a good reason. If a third party were to be elected they might do some bizarre, radical things. They might:
-Start three wars at a time
-Quintuple the nation's money supply and hand the printed money to cronies, commercial banks and incompetently run Wall Street stock jobbers.
-Encourage the Fed to hand between $12 and $25 trillion to the same incompetently run financial firms at the expense of taxpayers
-Repeal Americans' sacred liberties by legalizing unconstitutional searches and seizures under pretext
-Borrow nearly a trillion dollars and give it out to politically connected friends, claiming that it is a "stimulus," ignoring that the only justification for "stimulus" is that private savings rates are high so that government spending is needed to stimulate the economy.
-Declare that a firm like Boeing doesn't have the freedom to open a plant in a new state because it has labor troubles in the state in which it currently does business
-Replace the education system with an ideologically driven, politically correct indoctrination system that does not teach reading, writing and arithmetic
-Pass a cap and trade law that would condemn and loot a large portion of Americans' private homes
-Declare morality to be dead and then claim that on moral grounds they have the right to tell Americans what to eat, what kind of light bulbs to use, and that they should be servile to a United Nations dominated by tyrants.
Wait, that's what the Democrats and Republicans have done. I really don't see how a third party could be worse. So why don't Americans want to vote for third parties? It's because they're bloody morons who cannot think for themselves and do what the even bigger morons in the legacy media tell them to do.
Therefore, libertarians have to engage in damage control. The best way to limit both parties' ability to do harm is to split the government into a Republican-dominated Congress and a Democratic Party-dominated presidency.
The six percent of Republicans who are Ron Paul supporters can and might consider doing just that by voting for the Libertarian Party should Ron Paul fail to win the GOP nomination.
Today, The Wall Street Journal reports that the GOP's 2012 presidential playing field is blurry. That is, no candidate can command much support. Astonishingly, 16% of Republicans support Donald Trump, a dishonest, eminent domain socialist who was born on third base and cannot figure out how to reach home plate without government subsidies, looting of private property, cheating contractors and repeated bankruptcy. Someone needs to investigate whether Trump has received financing from organized crime in connection with his Atlantic City investments. Trump exemplifies the failure of the American economy under Progressivism, and he is a product of the stupid Federal Reserve Bank policies that led to the 2008 financial meltdown, have stopped the growth of the real hourly wage and guarantee that future generations of Americans will be much worse off than previous ones.
With 16% of Republicans supporting Trump, an additional 13% support Governor Mitt Romney. Romney implemented a failed socialist health plan in Massachusetts, and his policies are largely the same as Barack Obama's. As a presidential candidate for 2012, his first impulse was to aim to attempt to win financial backing from the same socialist Wall Street slime that finances Trump, that supported Obama in 2008, that received trillions in welfare payments in 2009, and that would not exist without ongoing welfare subsidies from the Federal Reserve Bank.
Now, Americans are loyal to the two party system for a good reason. If a third party were to be elected they might do some bizarre, radical things. They might:
-Start three wars at a time
-Quintuple the nation's money supply and hand the printed money to cronies, commercial banks and incompetently run Wall Street stock jobbers.
-Encourage the Fed to hand between $12 and $25 trillion to the same incompetently run financial firms at the expense of taxpayers
-Repeal Americans' sacred liberties by legalizing unconstitutional searches and seizures under pretext
-Borrow nearly a trillion dollars and give it out to politically connected friends, claiming that it is a "stimulus," ignoring that the only justification for "stimulus" is that private savings rates are high so that government spending is needed to stimulate the economy.
-Declare that a firm like Boeing doesn't have the freedom to open a plant in a new state because it has labor troubles in the state in which it currently does business
-Replace the education system with an ideologically driven, politically correct indoctrination system that does not teach reading, writing and arithmetic
-Pass a cap and trade law that would condemn and loot a large portion of Americans' private homes
-Declare morality to be dead and then claim that on moral grounds they have the right to tell Americans what to eat, what kind of light bulbs to use, and that they should be servile to a United Nations dominated by tyrants.
Wait, that's what the Democrats and Republicans have done. I really don't see how a third party could be worse. So why don't Americans want to vote for third parties? It's because they're bloody morons who cannot think for themselves and do what the even bigger morons in the legacy media tell them to do.
Therefore, libertarians have to engage in damage control. The best way to limit both parties' ability to do harm is to split the government into a Republican-dominated Congress and a Democratic Party-dominated presidency.
The six percent of Republicans who are Ron Paul supporters can and might consider doing just that by voting for the Libertarian Party should Ron Paul fail to win the GOP nomination.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
