When will we rise up and demand that our government live within it's means and stop spending on pork barrel stuff that has nothing to do with the original mandate of government which is to protect us against internal crime and external enemies? Why are these people taking from one group of citizens and distributing to other groups in a never ending game of Russian roulette?
1. Congress approved a $300 billion farm bill - subsidies at a time farmers are doing very well. Two thirds of this money goes to the top 10% richest farmers producing corn, cotton, wheat, rice and sugar. Because of the elections in November both parties are vying for first place for the party that can give away the most money from taxpayers. Pelosi is fighting "big corporate greed" but yet hands over billions to rich farmers! Where's the sense in that except that it's an election year.
2. There is a hiring binge going on in our sweet land and it ain't in the private sector which in fact has seen a loss of 286,000 jobs. Nope, the public Sector is the one on a hiring binge with a total of 77,000 new government workers on the payroll - which breaks down to : 14,000 hired in the Federal level, 16,000 hired at the state level and New York City alone has hired 14,000 new teachers. Government bloating continues and continues with no end in sight..
3. Talking about teachers...An analysis of some National survey data on what US citizens think are the costs of our public education finds that Americans underestimate what we shell out for this depressingly abysmal public education that we have. For example, teacher salary is underestimated by $14,000/yr and Americans think we spend $4,200/pupil but it's really more than $10,000/pupil a year! That's TEN THOUSAND dollars a year for each child being spent on education! I can send my kid to a private school for less and get a better educated child at the end. (Watch video WSJ).
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Vaclav Klaus Compares Global Warming Mantra to Communism's Mantra: Sacrifice
I have great respect for Vaclav Klaus, the President of Czechoslovakia. He is the ONLY head of state (that I'm aware of) that speaks out forcefully against all the global warming hype. He even questions the integrity of its spokespeople. Mr. Klaus astutely compares the Global warming mantra with the same type of mantra that the communists spewed forth decades ago. To understand how that ideology caused the deaths of millions is to be bewildered how today many people can still be taken in yet again by the same ideology: the sacrifice of the individual for the so called good of the "majority", "country" or today "earth". (Read at The Earth Times).
Czech President Vaclav Klaus said Tuesday he is ready to debate Al Gore about global warming, as he presented the English version of his latest book that argues environmentalism poses a threat to basic human freedoms. "I many times tried to talk to have a public exchange of views with him, and he's not too much willing to make such a conversation," Klaus said. "So I'm ready to do it."
Klaus was speaking a the National Press Building in Washington to present his new book, Blue Planet in Green Shackles - What Is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?, before meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney Wednesday.
"My answer is it is our freedom and, I might add, and our prosperity," he said.
...Klaus, an economist, said he opposed the "climate alarmism" perpetuated by environmentalism trying to impose their ideals, comparing it to the decades of communist rule he experienced growing up in Soviet-dominated Czechoslovakia.
"Like their (communist) predecessors, they will be certain that they have the right to sacrifice man and his freedom to make their idea reality," he said.
"In the past, it was in the name of the Marxists or of the proletariat - this time, in the name of the planet," he added.
Klaus said a free market should be used to address environmental concerns and said he opposed as unrealistic regulations or greenhouse gas capping systems designed to reduce the impact of climate change.
"It could be even true that we are now at a stage where mere facts, reason and truths are powerless in the face of the global warming propaganda," he said.
Klaus alleged that the global warming was being championed by scientists and other environmentalists whose careers and funding requires selling the public on global warming.
"It is in the hands of climatologists and other related scientists who are highly motivated to look in one direction only." (Read).
Czech President Vaclav Klaus said Tuesday he is ready to debate Al Gore about global warming, as he presented the English version of his latest book that argues environmentalism poses a threat to basic human freedoms. "I many times tried to talk to have a public exchange of views with him, and he's not too much willing to make such a conversation," Klaus said. "So I'm ready to do it."
Klaus was speaking a the National Press Building in Washington to present his new book, Blue Planet in Green Shackles - What Is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?, before meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney Wednesday.
"My answer is it is our freedom and, I might add, and our prosperity," he said.
...Klaus, an economist, said he opposed the "climate alarmism" perpetuated by environmentalism trying to impose their ideals, comparing it to the decades of communist rule he experienced growing up in Soviet-dominated Czechoslovakia.
"Like their (communist) predecessors, they will be certain that they have the right to sacrifice man and his freedom to make their idea reality," he said.
"In the past, it was in the name of the Marxists or of the proletariat - this time, in the name of the planet," he added.
Klaus said a free market should be used to address environmental concerns and said he opposed as unrealistic regulations or greenhouse gas capping systems designed to reduce the impact of climate change.
"It could be even true that we are now at a stage where mere facts, reason and truths are powerless in the face of the global warming propaganda," he said.
Klaus alleged that the global warming was being championed by scientists and other environmentalists whose careers and funding requires selling the public on global warming.
"It is in the hands of climatologists and other related scientists who are highly motivated to look in one direction only." (Read).
Friday, May 30, 2008
America STOP SLEEPING and DRILL for OIL!
The BBC has an interesting article on the history of OPEC. It is a cartel of various sized tyrannical dictatorships and they control supply and pricing.
Members of OPEC: Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Qatar, Indonesia, Libya, United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Nigeria, Ecuador, Angola.
The Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is an association of oil-producing nations set up in 1960 with the express purpose of influencing oil prices by controlling supply.
"Many of the oil-rich states are rich in very little else. Crude oil is their only export, making them uniquely vulnerable to world oil prices. When prices fell to $10 a barrel in 1998, their economies were hit hard. "In the US, OPEC is viewed as a cartel and therefore something to be smashed, which is not a helpful way of thinking about it," says Tony Scanlan of the British Institute of Energy Economics."
"The one thing the OPEC countries all have in common is their absolute reliance on one product - oil."
"...Another factor weakening the cartel is that as oil prices have risen, reserves that were not previously worth tapping in non-OPEC countries have now become viable and Russia has become a particularly significant supplier." (Read).
Many countries are drilling for oil for the first time. Why aren't we?
Members of OPEC: Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Qatar, Indonesia, Libya, United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Nigeria, Ecuador, Angola.
The Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is an association of oil-producing nations set up in 1960 with the express purpose of influencing oil prices by controlling supply.
"Many of the oil-rich states are rich in very little else. Crude oil is their only export, making them uniquely vulnerable to world oil prices. When prices fell to $10 a barrel in 1998, their economies were hit hard. "In the US, OPEC is viewed as a cartel and therefore something to be smashed, which is not a helpful way of thinking about it," says Tony Scanlan of the British Institute of Energy Economics."
"The one thing the OPEC countries all have in common is their absolute reliance on one product - oil."
"...Another factor weakening the cartel is that as oil prices have risen, reserves that were not previously worth tapping in non-OPEC countries have now become viable and Russia has become a particularly significant supplier." (Read).
Many countries are drilling for oil for the first time. Why aren't we?
Thursday, May 29, 2008
In the News: Capitalism Is the Best System for Liberating the Individual
Some items are all coming to a head and showing clearly the differences between Socialism/Communism/religious tyranny and Capitalism. Obama desperately needs to have a refresher on history because he seems to be wanting to lead us down the path of Socialism. (Not that Clinton would be any better).
"For at least a century, we have known beyond a doubt how a nation may lift itself up from endemic poverty to universal prosperity. All it requires is that we allow men to act on self-interest—". (Robert Tracinski at The Intellectual Activist).
1. Obama is showing his true colors lately and we're finding out that he is a socialist and he doesn't know history. He favors big government and he wants to talk to tyrants with no pre-conditions. Didn't Chamberlain do that with Hitler? Also, Obama has a lot of fishy friends like 60's radicals that liked to play with bombs. "Whether it’s Billy Ayers or Bernadine Dohrn, Tom Hayden or Jane Fonda, or any of the other lesser-knowns, 60s Marxist radicals are lining up behind Obama. Obama’s young worshippers think they see something altogether new, a unique persona, seemingly magically transported to this moment in history to help them finally be the ones to net the elusive butterfly of socialism’s never-realized promise." (National Review).
2. China's tyrants are paying the piper for their despotism. Corrupt local official who control a lot of everyday life still have been faulted with schools crashing in on thousands of students. The families are irate because in many cases they lost their ONLY child. Remember the one child policy? Well the Chinese political hacks are quaking in their boots and have now allowed couples to have another child to replace their lost one. But the people are screaming for blood. It'll be interesting to see if they decide to go all the way and demand total freedom. (Read).
3. We do not believe that Shell or Exxon executives are corrupt or make too much money. For goodness sakes most of us have money invested in this industry in our retirement plans. That luminary Representative Maxine Waters (D-Calif) not withstanding, I think that people clearly see that the current state of affairs regarding oil prices is totally due to government regulations and meddling in private affairs of the people. There are more and more demands that "government HANDS OFF". Let us drill for oil, build nuclear power plants and dig for coal and gas. We should have a march on Washington. THE MILLION PEOPLE MARCH FOR PRODUCING MORE ENERGY!
"For at least a century, we have known beyond a doubt how a nation may lift itself up from endemic poverty to universal prosperity. All it requires is that we allow men to act on self-interest—". (Robert Tracinski at The Intellectual Activist).
1. Obama is showing his true colors lately and we're finding out that he is a socialist and he doesn't know history. He favors big government and he wants to talk to tyrants with no pre-conditions. Didn't Chamberlain do that with Hitler? Also, Obama has a lot of fishy friends like 60's radicals that liked to play with bombs. "Whether it’s Billy Ayers or Bernadine Dohrn, Tom Hayden or Jane Fonda, or any of the other lesser-knowns, 60s Marxist radicals are lining up behind Obama. Obama’s young worshippers think they see something altogether new, a unique persona, seemingly magically transported to this moment in history to help them finally be the ones to net the elusive butterfly of socialism’s never-realized promise." (National Review).
2. China's tyrants are paying the piper for their despotism. Corrupt local official who control a lot of everyday life still have been faulted with schools crashing in on thousands of students. The families are irate because in many cases they lost their ONLY child. Remember the one child policy? Well the Chinese political hacks are quaking in their boots and have now allowed couples to have another child to replace their lost one. But the people are screaming for blood. It'll be interesting to see if they decide to go all the way and demand total freedom. (Read).
3. We do not believe that Shell or Exxon executives are corrupt or make too much money. For goodness sakes most of us have money invested in this industry in our retirement plans. That luminary Representative Maxine Waters (D-Calif) not withstanding, I think that people clearly see that the current state of affairs regarding oil prices is totally due to government regulations and meddling in private affairs of the people. There are more and more demands that "government HANDS OFF". Let us drill for oil, build nuclear power plants and dig for coal and gas. We should have a march on Washington. THE MILLION PEOPLE MARCH FOR PRODUCING MORE ENERGY!
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
BIG OIL is Really small oil...
The United States is not the big player in oil that we thought we were. More and more we are hearing just how corrupt our politicians are especially regarding OIL. This article in Power Line was brought to my attention by Robert Tracinski at The Intellectual Activist. It appears BIG OIL is really Small Oil. The United States is 14th in the production of oil behind the following government controlled producers: Go to article to see the graph.
Iran
Saudi Arabia
Russia
Qatar
UAE
Iraq
Kuwait
Venezuela
Nigeria
Libya
Algeria
Russia (another government control company)
Malaysia
Exxon (a PRIVATE COMPANY)
I hadn't realized, until the hearings on energy that were held this week in House and Senate committees, that the United States doesn't have any big oil companies. It's true: the largest American oil company, Exxon Mobil, is only the 14th largest in the world, and is dwarfed by the really big oil companies--all owned by foreign governments or government-sponsored monopolies--that dominate the world's oil supply.
With 94% of the world's oil supply locked up by foreign governments, most of which are hostile to the United States, the relatively puny American oil companies do not have access to enough crude oil to significantly affect the market and help bring prices down. ...
This is obviously a tough situation for the American consumer. The irony is that it doesn't have to be that way. The United States--unlike, say, France--actually has vast petroleum reserves. It would be possible for American oil companies to develop those reserves, play a far bigger role in international markets, and deliver gas at the pump to American consumers at a much lower price, while creating many thousands of jobs for Americans. This would be infinitely preferable to shipping endless billions of dollars to Saudi Arabia, Russia and Venezuela.
So, why doesn't it happen? Because the Democratic Party--aided, sadly, by a handful of Republicans--deliberately keeps gas prices high and our domestic oil companies small by putting most of our reserves off limits to development. China is now drilling in the Caribbean, but our own companies are barred by law from developing large oil fields off the coasts of Florida and California. Enormous shale oil deposits in the Rocky Mountain states could go a long way toward supplying American consumers' needs, but the Democratic Congress won't allow those resources to be developed. ANWR contains vast petroleum reserves, but we don't know how vast, because Congress, not wanting the American people to know how badly its policies are hurting our economy, has made it illegal to explore and map those reserves, let alone develop them.
In short, all Americans are paying a terrible price for the Democratic Party's perverse energy policies.
Isn't it time we take back our right to explore and produce energy from Washington and tell them to stop turning the US into a third world country because that is where we are headed unless something is done to get us the energy we need.
Iran
Saudi Arabia
Russia
Qatar
UAE
Iraq
Kuwait
Venezuela
Nigeria
Libya
Algeria
Russia (another government control company)
Malaysia
Exxon (a PRIVATE COMPANY)
I hadn't realized, until the hearings on energy that were held this week in House and Senate committees, that the United States doesn't have any big oil companies. It's true: the largest American oil company, Exxon Mobil, is only the 14th largest in the world, and is dwarfed by the really big oil companies--all owned by foreign governments or government-sponsored monopolies--that dominate the world's oil supply.
With 94% of the world's oil supply locked up by foreign governments, most of which are hostile to the United States, the relatively puny American oil companies do not have access to enough crude oil to significantly affect the market and help bring prices down. ...
This is obviously a tough situation for the American consumer. The irony is that it doesn't have to be that way. The United States--unlike, say, France--actually has vast petroleum reserves. It would be possible for American oil companies to develop those reserves, play a far bigger role in international markets, and deliver gas at the pump to American consumers at a much lower price, while creating many thousands of jobs for Americans. This would be infinitely preferable to shipping endless billions of dollars to Saudi Arabia, Russia and Venezuela.
So, why doesn't it happen? Because the Democratic Party--aided, sadly, by a handful of Republicans--deliberately keeps gas prices high and our domestic oil companies small by putting most of our reserves off limits to development. China is now drilling in the Caribbean, but our own companies are barred by law from developing large oil fields off the coasts of Florida and California. Enormous shale oil deposits in the Rocky Mountain states could go a long way toward supplying American consumers' needs, but the Democratic Congress won't allow those resources to be developed. ANWR contains vast petroleum reserves, but we don't know how vast, because Congress, not wanting the American people to know how badly its policies are hurting our economy, has made it illegal to explore and map those reserves, let alone develop them.
In short, all Americans are paying a terrible price for the Democratic Party's perverse energy policies.
Isn't it time we take back our right to explore and produce energy from Washington and tell them to stop turning the US into a third world country because that is where we are headed unless something is done to get us the energy we need.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Public School Mayhem Brought to You by The Corrupt Teachers Union
If you want to see how bad our Public schools are watch this video by Drew Carey and weep. How can we compete on the world stage when our children cannot get a decent education? How can we unlock the potential of each child when these Public schools are run by the most corrupt Union in America? It is obvious in the video whose interests the Union is trying to defend. Watch this and write to your congressman!
reason.tv - Videos > Unlocked
reason.tv - Videos > Unlocked
"Voters Prefer Heroes and Villains to Supply and Demand"
Thomas Sowell the economist, has a wonderful three-part article at Capitalism Magazine where he describes how politicians look to paint the picture of any particular problem as a hero and villains issue rather than what it is a problem of supply and demand.
This is Mr. Sowell's comments on the oil "crisis".
Senator Barack Obama clearly understands people's emotional needs and how to meet them. He wants to raise taxes on oil companies.
How that will get us more oil or lower the price of gasoline is a problem that can be left for economists to puzzle over. A politician's problem is how to get more votes-- and one of the most effective ways of doing that is to be a hero who will save us from the villains.
You have heard of the cavalry to the rescue. But have you ever heard of economists to the rescue?
While economists are talking supply and demand, politicians are talking compassion, "change" and being on the side of the angels-- and against drilling for our own oil.
Has any economist ever attracted the kinds of cheering crowds that Barack Obama has-- or even the crowds attracted by Hillary Clinton or John McCain?
If you want cheering crowds, don't bother to study economics. It will only hold you back. Tell people what they want to hear-- and they don't want to hear about supply and demand. (CapMag 1).
This is Mr. Sowell's comments on the housing "crisis".
So long as politicians can get some people's votes by publicly feeling their pain when it comes to housing costs, and other people's votes by restricting the building of housing, they can have a winning coalition at election time, which is their bottom line.
Economists may point out that the different members of this coalition have conflicting interests that could be better resolved through competition in the marketplace. But how many economists have ever put together a winning coalition?
So long as voters prefer heroes and villains to supply and demand, this game will continue to be played. It is not because supply and demand is too "complex" to understand, but because it is not emotionally satisfying.(CapMag 2)
This is Mr. Sowell's comments on property rights and how they are being mangled by the "living Constitution" doctrine.
However, once the notion of "a living Constitution" became fashionable, the Constitution's protection of property rights has been "interpreted" virtually out of existence by judges.
The biggest losers are not people who own property but people who have to pay higher prices because politicians make it harder for businesses that charge lower prices to come into the community.
Despite the political myth that government is protecting us from big businesses charging monopoly prices, the cold fact is that far more government actions have been taken against businesses that charge low prices than against businesses that charge high prices. (CapMag 3).
This is Mr. Sowell's comments on the oil "crisis".
Senator Barack Obama clearly understands people's emotional needs and how to meet them. He wants to raise taxes on oil companies.
How that will get us more oil or lower the price of gasoline is a problem that can be left for economists to puzzle over. A politician's problem is how to get more votes-- and one of the most effective ways of doing that is to be a hero who will save us from the villains.
You have heard of the cavalry to the rescue. But have you ever heard of economists to the rescue?
While economists are talking supply and demand, politicians are talking compassion, "change" and being on the side of the angels-- and against drilling for our own oil.
Has any economist ever attracted the kinds of cheering crowds that Barack Obama has-- or even the crowds attracted by Hillary Clinton or John McCain?
If you want cheering crowds, don't bother to study economics. It will only hold you back. Tell people what they want to hear-- and they don't want to hear about supply and demand. (CapMag 1).
This is Mr. Sowell's comments on the housing "crisis".
So long as politicians can get some people's votes by publicly feeling their pain when it comes to housing costs, and other people's votes by restricting the building of housing, they can have a winning coalition at election time, which is their bottom line.
Economists may point out that the different members of this coalition have conflicting interests that could be better resolved through competition in the marketplace. But how many economists have ever put together a winning coalition?
So long as voters prefer heroes and villains to supply and demand, this game will continue to be played. It is not because supply and demand is too "complex" to understand, but because it is not emotionally satisfying.(CapMag 2)
This is Mr. Sowell's comments on property rights and how they are being mangled by the "living Constitution" doctrine.
However, once the notion of "a living Constitution" became fashionable, the Constitution's protection of property rights has been "interpreted" virtually out of existence by judges.
The biggest losers are not people who own property but people who have to pay higher prices because politicians make it harder for businesses that charge lower prices to come into the community.
Despite the political myth that government is protecting us from big businesses charging monopoly prices, the cold fact is that far more government actions have been taken against businesses that charge low prices than against businesses that charge high prices. (CapMag 3).
The Environmentalists Have Never Been Right
The Environmentalists have been with us for a long time now and they have never been right about anything. But yet our government pays them such attention that it defies logic - why? I think that it's the squeaky wheel gets the attention theory. Because this small group of dedicated doomsday squawking people manage to captivate our media's attention, the politicians feel it their duty to respond by enacting laws that hurt us as individuals and our nation. Maybe it's time the rest of raise our voices in favor of reason and sense. Have a wonderful Memorial Day Weekend and powerup that grill!
Here is more of Walter Williams -
"...The fact of the matter, according to the American Gas Association, there's a 1,000 to 2,500 year supply.
"…In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of man made global cooling and the threat of an ice age and millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity? When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome? In 1939, when the U.S. Department of the Interior warned that we only had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should President Roosevelt have taken? Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct now that they have switched their tune to manmade global warming?
"Here are a few facts: Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth's average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit. Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun's output. On top of that, natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.
"Here are a few facts: Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth's average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit. Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun's output. On top of that, natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined." (CapMag)
Here is more of Walter Williams -
"...The fact of the matter, according to the American Gas Association, there's a 1,000 to 2,500 year supply.
"…In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of man made global cooling and the threat of an ice age and millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity? When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome? In 1939, when the U.S. Department of the Interior warned that we only had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should President Roosevelt have taken? Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct now that they have switched their tune to manmade global warming?
"Here are a few facts: Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth's average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit. Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun's output. On top of that, natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.
"Here are a few facts: Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth's average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit. Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun's output. On top of that, natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined." (CapMag)
Sunday, May 18, 2008
LESSON: Punish Hoodlums Like Chavez When They're Still Small Fry
Mr. Tracinski at The Intellectual Activist uses Venezuela as his 'standing example of the "broken country effect." ' The original term was "broken window effect" in reference to the fact that when a broken window was not repaired it sent a signal to vandals that law and order would not be maintained and so the criminals could take over the streets at will. Remember Mayor Rudy Giuliani and how he cleaned up the streets of the crime ridden New York City by implementing a standard order that broken windows and such were to be repaired immediately?
"The lesson for police work—applied with famous results in New York City—is that vigorous enforcement of even minor violations of the law suppresses all crime. Punishing hoodlums for misdemeanors discourages them from graduating to felonies, because they conclude that they can't get away with it. "
"The lesson for foreign policy is that vigorously opposing dictatorship early on prevents the thugs and strong men from concluding that they are in control—and saves us from having to deal with a much larger crisis later on. How little force would have been required to free our hostage in Iran in 1979—and how much has the failure to do so cost us in the decades since? "
"Or take Venezuela. In 2002, the people of Venezuela briefly forced Hugo Chavez out of office in a peaceful rebellion. But the overthrow of Chavez failed when it received virtually no international support—including from the US. The result? Chavez has wrecked Venezuela's economy, forged an alliance with Iran, and supported the rise of leftist dictators (or would-be dictators, or former dictators) throughout Latin America."
"Now, with the exposure of his support for the Colombian terrorist group FARC, Chavez has become the Western Hemisphere's first state sponsor of terrorism, as Colby Cosh puts it below in Canada's National Post. This story is also covered well in Investor's Business Daily.
And all of this happened because we failed to take relatively simple and easy measures to support Chavez's overthrow in 2002." (TIA)
Read Colby Cosh's article in the National Post and Investor's Business Daily as well.
"The lesson for police work—applied with famous results in New York City—is that vigorous enforcement of even minor violations of the law suppresses all crime. Punishing hoodlums for misdemeanors discourages them from graduating to felonies, because they conclude that they can't get away with it. "
"The lesson for foreign policy is that vigorously opposing dictatorship early on prevents the thugs and strong men from concluding that they are in control—and saves us from having to deal with a much larger crisis later on. How little force would have been required to free our hostage in Iran in 1979—and how much has the failure to do so cost us in the decades since? "
"Or take Venezuela. In 2002, the people of Venezuela briefly forced Hugo Chavez out of office in a peaceful rebellion. But the overthrow of Chavez failed when it received virtually no international support—including from the US. The result? Chavez has wrecked Venezuela's economy, forged an alliance with Iran, and supported the rise of leftist dictators (or would-be dictators, or former dictators) throughout Latin America."
"Now, with the exposure of his support for the Colombian terrorist group FARC, Chavez has become the Western Hemisphere's first state sponsor of terrorism, as Colby Cosh puts it below in Canada's National Post. This story is also covered well in Investor's Business Daily.
And all of this happened because we failed to take relatively simple and easy measures to support Chavez's overthrow in 2002." (TIA)
Read Colby Cosh's article in the National Post and Investor's Business Daily as well.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
The Giant Begs for Oil and Sells It's Soul
It's criminal how our politicians degrade our great nation with their corruption but it goes beyond the pale when our President, with hat in extended hand has the gall to appear before a King that rules a land filled with desert and oil and beg them to increase their production of oil for us-not once, but TWICE. Have we fallen so low as a people?
A cardinal rule of presidential diplomacy is never to ask publicly for favors unless you know in advance they will be granted. The same request by Mr. Bush had already been rebuffed by the Saudis during his visit to Riyadh in January. This time around, the Saudi response was particularly blunt and condescending: "If you want more oil, you need to buy it," said Ali al-Naimi, the Saudi oil minister. (WSJ- Beseeching the Saudis)
To pile on the humiliation, this administration is selling the Saudis billions of dollars worth of advanced weapons and we're going to help them build nuclear power plants to cover their energy needs. By the way this will put these Arabs in possession of radioactive fuel rods! (Read and Read ).
A cardinal rule of presidential diplomacy is never to ask publicly for favors unless you know in advance they will be granted. The same request by Mr. Bush had already been rebuffed by the Saudis during his visit to Riyadh in January. This time around, the Saudi response was particularly blunt and condescending: "If you want more oil, you need to buy it," said Ali al-Naimi, the Saudi oil minister. (WSJ- Beseeching the Saudis)
To pile on the humiliation, this administration is selling the Saudis billions of dollars worth of advanced weapons and we're going to help them build nuclear power plants to cover their energy needs. By the way this will put these Arabs in possession of radioactive fuel rods! (Read and Read ).
The question I'm sure everyone is asking except for the environmentalists, and kow-towing politicians that tremble before these wackos, are:
WHY are we begging for more oil from Arabs?
WHY are we selling weapons to a nation that is frankly NOT our friend?
WHY are we planning to build nuclear power plants for them when WE CAN'T get one built?
WHY would we give them access to radioactive fuel rods?
The answer is we don't know anymore who are the destroyers and who are the life givers in this new world order on planet Earth. When as Americans we reject the principles of our founding, by selling our soul, then this is what we are reduced to: Begging from a people who could not even find their own oil before the Americans arrived early in the last century.
We have oil - let's drill for it and let's build 200 nuclear power plants and get off the dole of Middle Eastern oil before they use it as a weapon against us. (Foto from FoxNews.com)
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Self-starters vs Cry Babies - Whose Happier?
Arthur C. Brooks' new book called Gross National Happiness: Why Happiness Matters to America and How We Can Get More of It - attempts to explain why conservatives are happier than liberals.
"You find that all the way back to the early 1970s, as long as we’ve been keeping data on the subject, conservatives have consistently shown greater life satisfaction than liberals,” Brooks tells Newsmax. "
"In one study, people who identified themselves as conservative were nearly twice as likely to say they were very happy as people who said they are liberal. In contrast, Brooks says, “Liberals are less likely to be optimistic about the future, and they’re more likely to say they feel like a failure.” '
"The question is, why? "
' “What you find is that freedom, including economic freedom, religious freedom, and political freedom, push happiness up hugely,” Brooks says, “But more voluntary personal freedom about morality drives happiness down.” '
"Thus, if the government limits moral freedom, it reduces happiness because it limits political freedom. “But what you find is when people voluntarily limit their own moral freedom by saying they think premarital sex is wrong, taking drugs is wrong, or abortion is wrong, they’re much happier people,” says Brooks, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute."
' “People, as they get conservative, get happier, and as they get happier, they also get more conservative,” Brooks says. “They get happier as they get more conservative because they adopt a worldview that says that things are possible through hard work, and that mobility is not just a hollow promise.” '
"Brooks says the fact that conservatives are by nature more self-reliant is an important factor. "
' “It’s unseemly for conservatives to say, Woe is me; I’m a victim; the world’s oppressing me,” he says. “Conservatives aren’t supposed to say that. One of the fundamental tenets of the conservative character is to strike out on your own, to try to chase after your own fate. Just doing that will make you happier. You’re also more likely to become a successful person if you take that course.” '
People who are self-starters, hard-working and enjoy the challenges of life are happier than people who are dependent on government handouts and feel like victims. The question is why are there so many of victim mentality? Could it be our schools are creating a nation of cry babies and sheep? I think our government run schools have a lot to do with it especially if the parents at home are also of the victim mentality. (Read at Newsmax.com)
"You find that all the way back to the early 1970s, as long as we’ve been keeping data on the subject, conservatives have consistently shown greater life satisfaction than liberals,” Brooks tells Newsmax. "
"In one study, people who identified themselves as conservative were nearly twice as likely to say they were very happy as people who said they are liberal. In contrast, Brooks says, “Liberals are less likely to be optimistic about the future, and they’re more likely to say they feel like a failure.” '
"The question is, why? "
' “What you find is that freedom, including economic freedom, religious freedom, and political freedom, push happiness up hugely,” Brooks says, “But more voluntary personal freedom about morality drives happiness down.” '
"Thus, if the government limits moral freedom, it reduces happiness because it limits political freedom. “But what you find is when people voluntarily limit their own moral freedom by saying they think premarital sex is wrong, taking drugs is wrong, or abortion is wrong, they’re much happier people,” says Brooks, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute."
' “People, as they get conservative, get happier, and as they get happier, they also get more conservative,” Brooks says. “They get happier as they get more conservative because they adopt a worldview that says that things are possible through hard work, and that mobility is not just a hollow promise.” '
"Brooks says the fact that conservatives are by nature more self-reliant is an important factor. "
' “It’s unseemly for conservatives to say, Woe is me; I’m a victim; the world’s oppressing me,” he says. “Conservatives aren’t supposed to say that. One of the fundamental tenets of the conservative character is to strike out on your own, to try to chase after your own fate. Just doing that will make you happier. You’re also more likely to become a successful person if you take that course.” '
People who are self-starters, hard-working and enjoy the challenges of life are happier than people who are dependent on government handouts and feel like victims. The question is why are there so many of victim mentality? Could it be our schools are creating a nation of cry babies and sheep? I think our government run schools have a lot to do with it especially if the parents at home are also of the victim mentality. (Read at Newsmax.com)
Monday, May 12, 2008
Billions of Years of Climate Change vs "Scientific Prostitutes"
More and more scientists are speaking out against Al Gore's and his minons of Global Warming doomsday.
"No, what is truly evil is that Al Gore and his scientific prostitutes take advantage of people's ignorance. Al Gore must have said a thousand times that we must "stop climate change" on a planet that has had billions of years of climate change. We must preserve the composition of an atmosphere that has never had a stable composition."
"...The rotation of the earth is slowing, the distance of the moon is increasing, the atmosphere of the earth and the radiation of the sun keep changing, continents drift together and break apart, volcanoes erupt unpredictably, asteroids crash intermittently, and Al Gore, the Nobel committee, three presidential candidates, and the United Nations tell us that we have to sacrifice one tenth of our economy to keep it from all happening." (Jonathan David Carson: The American Thinker)
"No, what is truly evil is that Al Gore and his scientific prostitutes take advantage of people's ignorance. Al Gore must have said a thousand times that we must "stop climate change" on a planet that has had billions of years of climate change. We must preserve the composition of an atmosphere that has never had a stable composition."
"...The rotation of the earth is slowing, the distance of the moon is increasing, the atmosphere of the earth and the radiation of the sun keep changing, continents drift together and break apart, volcanoes erupt unpredictably, asteroids crash intermittently, and Al Gore, the Nobel committee, three presidential candidates, and the United Nations tell us that we have to sacrifice one tenth of our economy to keep it from all happening." (Jonathan David Carson: The American Thinker)
Sunday, May 11, 2008
"Plant Dignity" - Symptom of a Cultural Disease Infecting Western Civilization
Rob Tracinski (The Intellectual Activist) brought my attention to the next step in the anti-reason, anti-man world of environmentalism: rights for plants (The Weekly Standard). Yup, you read correctly. These kooks want us now to bow down to plants and recognize that they have rights as well.
You just knew it was coming: At the request of the Swiss government, an ethics panel has weighed in on the "dignity" of plants and opined that the arbitrary
killing of flora is morally wrong. This is no hoax. The concept of what could be
called "plant rights" is being seriously debated.
A "clear majority" of the panel adopted what it called a "biocentric" moral view, meaning that "living organisms should be considered morally for their own sake because they are alive." Thus, the panel determined that we cannot claim "absolute ownership" over plants and, moreover, that "individual plants have an inherent worth." This means that "we may not use them just as we please, even if the plant community is not in danger, or if our actions do not endanger the species, or if we are not acting arbitrarily."
The committee offered this illustration: A farmer mows his field (apparently an acceptable action, perhaps because the hay is intended to feed the farmer's herd--the report doesn't say). But then, while walking home, he casually "decapitates" some wildflowers with his scythe. The panel decries this act as immoral, though its members can't agree why...
What folly. We live in a time of cornucopian abundance and plenty, yet countless human beings are malnourished, even starving. In the face of this cruel paradox, worry about the purported rights of plants is the true immorality.
What folly indeed! The basic folly is the fact that we don't know what rights are and why they apply only to man. Ayn Rand once wrote:
"The concept of individual rights is so prodigious a feat of political thinking that few men grasp it fully - and two hundred years have not been enough for other countries to understand it. But this is the concept to which we owe our lives - the concept which made it possible for us to bring into reality everything of value that any of us did or will achieve or experience." (A Nation's Unity in "The Ayn Rand Letter", II, 2, 3).
Rights are a necessity of human existence because man has free will and is capable of good and evil. When Individual Rights are upheld they serve as moral principals that help man live with one another on this earth in a rational and peaceful way. To give rights to animals and plants is to step toward the destruction of man because they trivialize the life of man by tying his mind and hands up in knots so that he does not know anymore how to live.
You just knew it was coming: At the request of the Swiss government, an ethics panel has weighed in on the "dignity" of plants and opined that the arbitrary
killing of flora is morally wrong. This is no hoax. The concept of what could be
called "plant rights" is being seriously debated.
A "clear majority" of the panel adopted what it called a "biocentric" moral view, meaning that "living organisms should be considered morally for their own sake because they are alive." Thus, the panel determined that we cannot claim "absolute ownership" over plants and, moreover, that "individual plants have an inherent worth." This means that "we may not use them just as we please, even if the plant community is not in danger, or if our actions do not endanger the species, or if we are not acting arbitrarily."
The committee offered this illustration: A farmer mows his field (apparently an acceptable action, perhaps because the hay is intended to feed the farmer's herd--the report doesn't say). But then, while walking home, he casually "decapitates" some wildflowers with his scythe. The panel decries this act as immoral, though its members can't agree why...
What folly. We live in a time of cornucopian abundance and plenty, yet countless human beings are malnourished, even starving. In the face of this cruel paradox, worry about the purported rights of plants is the true immorality.
What folly indeed! The basic folly is the fact that we don't know what rights are and why they apply only to man. Ayn Rand once wrote:
"The concept of individual rights is so prodigious a feat of political thinking that few men grasp it fully - and two hundred years have not been enough for other countries to understand it. But this is the concept to which we owe our lives - the concept which made it possible for us to bring into reality everything of value that any of us did or will achieve or experience." (A Nation's Unity in "The Ayn Rand Letter", II, 2, 3).
Rights are a necessity of human existence because man has free will and is capable of good and evil. When Individual Rights are upheld they serve as moral principals that help man live with one another on this earth in a rational and peaceful way. To give rights to animals and plants is to step toward the destruction of man because they trivialize the life of man by tying his mind and hands up in knots so that he does not know anymore how to live.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Obama, The Mirage
City Journal has a fascinating review of Barack Obama's political career and character - pointing out the reality versus the myth of this man. It is particularly important we understand who we are voting for, that is that we understand the character of this man for he is not what he appears to be. The article is entitled: The Illusion that is Barack Obama by Fred Siegel. Below are the last five paragraphs.
Obama is the internationalist opposed to free trade. He is the friend of race-baiters who thinks Don Imus deserved to be fired. He is the proponent of courage in the face of powerful interests who lacked the courage to break with Wright (until Wednesday). He is the man who would lead our efforts against terrorism yet was friendly with Bill Ayers, the unrepentant 1960s terrorist. He is the post-racialist supporter of affirmative action. He is the enemy of Big Oil who takes money from executives at Exxon-Mobil, Shell and British Petroleum.
Obama has, in a sense, represented a new version of the invisible man, a candidate whose colour obscures his failings.
But so far, the wild discrepancy between Obama's words and his deeds, and between his enormous ambitions and his minimal accomplishments, doesn't seem to have fazed his core supporters, who apparently suffer from a severe case of cognitive dissonance. Like cultists who rededicate themselves when the cult's prophecies have been falsified, his fans redouble their delusions in the face of his obvious hypocrisy.
That is because Obama, in the imagination of many of his fans in the public and the press, is both a deduction from what was - the failures of the Bush administration and the scandals of the Clintons - and an expression of what should be.
The ideal, the aspiration, is so rhetorically appealing that it has been assumed to be true. They remind one of Woodrow Wilson's answer when asked if his plan for a League of Nations was practicable: "If it won't work, it must be made to work." (Read the complete article in The Australian).
Obama is the internationalist opposed to free trade. He is the friend of race-baiters who thinks Don Imus deserved to be fired. He is the proponent of courage in the face of powerful interests who lacked the courage to break with Wright (until Wednesday). He is the man who would lead our efforts against terrorism yet was friendly with Bill Ayers, the unrepentant 1960s terrorist. He is the post-racialist supporter of affirmative action. He is the enemy of Big Oil who takes money from executives at Exxon-Mobil, Shell and British Petroleum.
Obama has, in a sense, represented a new version of the invisible man, a candidate whose colour obscures his failings.
But so far, the wild discrepancy between Obama's words and his deeds, and between his enormous ambitions and his minimal accomplishments, doesn't seem to have fazed his core supporters, who apparently suffer from a severe case of cognitive dissonance. Like cultists who rededicate themselves when the cult's prophecies have been falsified, his fans redouble their delusions in the face of his obvious hypocrisy.
That is because Obama, in the imagination of many of his fans in the public and the press, is both a deduction from what was - the failures of the Bush administration and the scandals of the Clintons - and an expression of what should be.
The ideal, the aspiration, is so rhetorically appealing that it has been assumed to be true. They remind one of Woodrow Wilson's answer when asked if his plan for a League of Nations was practicable: "If it won't work, it must be made to work." (Read the complete article in The Australian).
Global Warming and the "Decoupling from Science Reality"
The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition website provides a wealth of information on the so called "Climate change" aka global warming (as per Al Gore - the scientist). Let us beware of the sirens of global warming before we plunge ourselves into the black waters of falsehoods, distortions and lies so that the few wiley propagandists benefit while we pay the cost.
This is an extraordinary state of affairs, unparalleled in modern history. Sovereign governments have become so enamoured of climate computer models, and decoupled from science reality, that they plan to impose environmental measures that will be financially and socially devastating, but which will have a negligible effect on what is anyway a mostly imaginary problem.
How did this come about? The answer, both in New Zealand and internationally, is that the successful conversion of citizens and governments to the cult of eco-salvationism reflects much hard and clever work by the special interest groups that benefit from the global warming scam.
Formidably, persons with a self-interest in climate alarmism now include environmental NGOs (who seek membership subscriptions and power), other politicians of all stripes (who seek to be elected), governments (who seek to be re-elected), bureaucrats (who seek to maintain their budgets), scientists (who seek to ensure their research income), churches (who are desperate for “relevance”), the media (who know that alarmism sells advertising), both conventional and alternative energy providers (rent seekers, one and all), the carbon indulgences industry (which uses guilt to prey on innocent, travelling citizens) and – perhaps most frightening of all; remember Enron - the financial markets’ and legal fraternity (members of which can recognize a gravy train when they see one). Finally, remember that we are now talking about the paper-only trading of an invisible commodity that has no useful purpose and is always difficult and sometimes impossible to measure - attributes that make it certain that fraudulent criminal activity will be induced.
The widespread conversion of public opinion to the cause of climate alarmism could not have occurred without the active connivance of both the government and the media. In New Zealand, politically correct government propaganda on climate change is now almost totalitarian in nature, as represented by the information issued by many government departments, and websites that are specially targetted at teachers and school children (e.g.,). At the same time, news and current affairs reporting on climate change has become so biased that New Zealand reporters have been singled out for criticism in front of the high powered US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
I highly recommend this site for anyone interested in truth (go here).
This is an extraordinary state of affairs, unparalleled in modern history. Sovereign governments have become so enamoured of climate computer models, and decoupled from science reality, that they plan to impose environmental measures that will be financially and socially devastating, but which will have a negligible effect on what is anyway a mostly imaginary problem.
How did this come about? The answer, both in New Zealand and internationally, is that the successful conversion of citizens and governments to the cult of eco-salvationism reflects much hard and clever work by the special interest groups that benefit from the global warming scam.
Formidably, persons with a self-interest in climate alarmism now include environmental NGOs (who seek membership subscriptions and power), other politicians of all stripes (who seek to be elected), governments (who seek to be re-elected), bureaucrats (who seek to maintain their budgets), scientists (who seek to ensure their research income), churches (who are desperate for “relevance”), the media (who know that alarmism sells advertising), both conventional and alternative energy providers (rent seekers, one and all), the carbon indulgences industry (which uses guilt to prey on innocent, travelling citizens) and – perhaps most frightening of all; remember Enron - the financial markets’ and legal fraternity (members of which can recognize a gravy train when they see one). Finally, remember that we are now talking about the paper-only trading of an invisible commodity that has no useful purpose and is always difficult and sometimes impossible to measure - attributes that make it certain that fraudulent criminal activity will be induced.
The widespread conversion of public opinion to the cause of climate alarmism could not have occurred without the active connivance of both the government and the media. In New Zealand, politically correct government propaganda on climate change is now almost totalitarian in nature, as represented by the information issued by many government departments, and websites that are specially targetted at teachers and school children (e.g.,
I highly recommend this site for anyone interested in truth (go here).
Does Obama Know the Pricetag for European-Style Socialism?
German writer Gabor Steingart only has to watch Barack Obama on TV to help with his homesickness. In a whimsical opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal he muses about this presidential candidate.
"The promised land of universal health care, secure pensions, a lot of green-collar jobs and stable bridges brings me back to my home country. My grandma, who has worked in a post office all her life, enjoys her pension without having ever observed the stock market. Everyone who travels through the countryside can see thousands of windmills, but never a collapsed bridge. And the best: My mom, my friends and everyone around them have access to first-class medical services."
Mr. Steingart believes that Obama wants to "trump" Germany's socialism. "He has promised not only a $160 billion program for new green-collar jobs, a higher minimum wage, affordable health care for everybody, a massive investment in infrastructure and tax-free status for pensioners who make less than $50,000. All these nice things come with no tax increase for 95% of Americans. Wow! That's Germany-plus!"
"I've been in the U.S. for a while, but if I remember my home country correctly, all the German comforts come with a price. My grandma has paid 10% of her salary to the public pension system, and her employer has matched the contribution. For our health insurance everyone has to sacrifice 7% of his or her earnings, which again is matched by the company. Fashionable windmills go along with extra taxes for fuel. A gallon of regular gas in Munich or Berlin costs – fasten your seat belt – more than $8.
"Not all of my fellow Germans are happy with this, but the overwhelming majority of my fellow countrymen made their decision a long time ago. They prefer big government. They have learned to live with growth rates far behind and an unemployment rate far above the U.S."
"The promised land of universal health care, secure pensions, a lot of green-collar jobs and stable bridges brings me back to my home country. My grandma, who has worked in a post office all her life, enjoys her pension without having ever observed the stock market. Everyone who travels through the countryside can see thousands of windmills, but never a collapsed bridge. And the best: My mom, my friends and everyone around them have access to first-class medical services."
Mr. Steingart believes that Obama wants to "trump" Germany's socialism. "He has promised not only a $160 billion program for new green-collar jobs, a higher minimum wage, affordable health care for everybody, a massive investment in infrastructure and tax-free status for pensioners who make less than $50,000. All these nice things come with no tax increase for 95% of Americans. Wow! That's Germany-plus!"
"I've been in the U.S. for a while, but if I remember my home country correctly, all the German comforts come with a price. My grandma has paid 10% of her salary to the public pension system, and her employer has matched the contribution. For our health insurance everyone has to sacrifice 7% of his or her earnings, which again is matched by the company. Fashionable windmills go along with extra taxes for fuel. A gallon of regular gas in Munich or Berlin costs – fasten your seat belt – more than $8.
"Not all of my fellow Germans are happy with this, but the overwhelming majority of my fellow countrymen made their decision a long time ago. They prefer big government. They have learned to live with growth rates far behind and an unemployment rate far above the U.S."
"...it seems to me that the agent of change was window-shopping in Germany without looking at the price tag. You should ask him for the bill."
Indeed we should. Mr. Obama, how do you plan to pay for all your socialism? Do you think that as Americans we would want to live off of the government? That we should turn over our money to basically inept politicians and bean counters and pray that all our needs are met? Do you think we are like the Europeans content to let bureaucrats care for us and do our thinking for us? We are a proud nation of can-do people who pull themselves up by the bootstraps. Keep European style socialism in Europe thank you. (Read WSJ).
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Scaremongers and Doomsday Evangelists
The scaremongers and doomsday evangelists have always been with us throughout history but it's simply amazing that these types never learn from their predecessor's past totally off the mark predictions of disaster and doom that await us if we don't change our ways. Walter Williams, one of my favorite observers of the American cultural and political landscape, lists at CapMag some of the prognostications and predictions of past environmentalists: I will list some of them here but read his article.
1969 "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war ..."
"The cooling since 1940 has been large enough ...that it will not soon be reversed."
1968 "Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and
1989 and by 1999 the US population would decline to 22.6 million".
"If I were a gambler I would take even money that England will not exist in ...2000."
1972 Club of Rome report declared that the world would run out:
gold in 1981
Mercury and silver by 1985
tin by 1987
petroleum, copper, lead, natural gas by 1992
1975 the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning "The world as we know it will
likely be ruined by the year 2000.
1970 Senator Nelson warned that by 1995 between 75-85% of all species of living animals will
be extinct.
1885 US geological Survey said "little or no chance" of oil being discovered in California.
1939 US Department of the interior said US oil supplies would last only another 13 years.
1949 the end of US oil supplies was in sight.
1974 the US had only a 10 year supply of natural gas (there's a 1000 to 2500 year supply)
Read the rest of this interesting column at Capitalism Magazine.
1969 "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war ..."
"The cooling since 1940 has been large enough ...that it will not soon be reversed."
1968 "Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and
1989 and by 1999 the US population would decline to 22.6 million".
"If I were a gambler I would take even money that England will not exist in ...2000."
1972 Club of Rome report declared that the world would run out:
gold in 1981
Mercury and silver by 1985
tin by 1987
petroleum, copper, lead, natural gas by 1992
1975 the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning "The world as we know it will
likely be ruined by the year 2000.
1970 Senator Nelson warned that by 1995 between 75-85% of all species of living animals will
be extinct.
1885 US geological Survey said "little or no chance" of oil being discovered in California.
1939 US Department of the interior said US oil supplies would last only another 13 years.
1949 the end of US oil supplies was in sight.
1974 the US had only a 10 year supply of natural gas (there's a 1000 to 2500 year supply)
Read the rest of this interesting column at Capitalism Magazine.
Monday, May 05, 2008
Are We Entering the World of Atlas Shrugged?
Have I just walked into Ayn Rand's blockbuster novel Atlas Shrugged or what?
Go to Gerald Prante http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23183.html to read about this idiotic bill introduced by Rep. Paul Kanjorski. The current high price of gas has led to a lot of crazy proposals from gas tax holidays to creating a tax deduction based upon energy consumption. But Rep. Paul Kanjorski's (D-PA) may top them all in terms of its stupidity. From the Times Leader, Kanjorski's plan would do the following:
• H.R. 5800 would tax industries’ windfall profits.
• The bill would set up a Reasonable Profits Board to determine when these companies’ profits are in excess, and then tax them on those windfall profits.
• As oil and gas companies’ windfall profits increase, so would the tax rate for those companies.
• Kanjorski said his legislation will encourage oil companies to lower prices to prevent them from receiving higher tax rates.
"While Hillary Clinton may have failed ECON 101 along with John McCain, it appears as if Kanjorski may been enrolled in Marxism 450 at the time. In all honesty, nationalization of the oil industry (i.e. Venezuela) may be better than Kanjorski's ridiculous proposal."
"One can make a case for taxing that portion of the return to capital that comes from economic rents, but Kanjorski has probably never even heard the term. An economist who backed such a tax would understand that such a tax is not going to lead to lower prices at the pump, just as economists are setting the record straight on the current gas tax holiday gimmick. Furthermore, the justification for taxing economic rents would apply to all sectors, not just petroleum."
So what's next? An owner of a restaurant can't make above 50,000 dollars in profit per year? Oh, I forgot that already exists with the minimum wage laws. Where are Francisco D'Anconia, Hank Reardon and John Galt when you need them?
Go to Gerald Prante http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23183.html to read about this idiotic bill introduced by Rep. Paul Kanjorski. The current high price of gas has led to a lot of crazy proposals from gas tax holidays to creating a tax deduction based upon energy consumption. But Rep. Paul Kanjorski's (D-PA) may top them all in terms of its stupidity. From the Times Leader, Kanjorski's plan would do the following:
• H.R. 5800 would tax industries’ windfall profits.
• The bill would set up a Reasonable Profits Board to determine when these companies’ profits are in excess, and then tax them on those windfall profits.
• As oil and gas companies’ windfall profits increase, so would the tax rate for those companies.
• Kanjorski said his legislation will encourage oil companies to lower prices to prevent them from receiving higher tax rates.
"While Hillary Clinton may have failed ECON 101 along with John McCain, it appears as if Kanjorski may been enrolled in Marxism 450 at the time. In all honesty, nationalization of the oil industry (i.e. Venezuela) may be better than Kanjorski's ridiculous proposal."
"One can make a case for taxing that portion of the return to capital that comes from economic rents, but Kanjorski has probably never even heard the term. An economist who backed such a tax would understand that such a tax is not going to lead to lower prices at the pump, just as economists are setting the record straight on the current gas tax holiday gimmick. Furthermore, the justification for taxing economic rents would apply to all sectors, not just petroleum."
So what's next? An owner of a restaurant can't make above 50,000 dollars in profit per year? Oh, I forgot that already exists with the minimum wage laws. Where are Francisco D'Anconia, Hank Reardon and John Galt when you need them?
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Will Iraq be a Repetition of Vietnam?
Know your history or you will be condemned to repeat it. For those of you who are too young to remember the way the Democrats saw to it that we abandoned Vietnam to the communists in spite of the fact that we won the war on the ground are seeing nothing new with today's cries for leaving Iraq even though we are winning the war on the ground. Arthur Herman in his "Democrats and the Killing Field" in the Wall Street Journal, reminds us of those horrible events and what it meant for the people we were "saving" and other countries that were taken over by brutal dictatorships because they found out America was a paper tiger.
"Most people have never heard of Operation Frequent Wind, which ended on April 30, 1975, 33 years ago. But every American has seen pictures of it: the Marine helicopters evacuating the last U.S. personnel from the embassy in Saigon, hours before communist tanks rolled into the city. Thousands of desperate Vietnamese gathered at the embassy gate and begged to be taken with them. Others committed suicide."
...Actually, the U.S. had won the war in Vietnam on the battlefield, just as the surge has done today in Iraq. Over Easter 1972, South Vietnamese forces, backed by U.S. airpower, crushed the last communist offensive, killing nearly 100,000 North Vietnamese troops.
Because we left too early, Vietnamese were slaughtered after they were "liberated and the new communist regime "ordered somewhere between one- third to one-half of South Vietnam's population to pass through its "re-education" camps"...
"That number does not include the thousands of "boat people" who tried to flee the totalitarian nightmare of communist Vietnam, and perished at sea."
In Cambodia at least 1.5 million innocent Cambodians were "butchered or starved to death in the Khmer Rouge's killing fields and re-education camps..."
This pullout by the United States ushered in the most atrocious take over of various countries by the Marxist-Leninist thugs.
"Marxist-Leninist regimes emerged not only in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos, but in Ethiopia and Guinea Bissau (1974), Madagascar, Cape Verde, Mozambique, and Angola (1975), Afghanistan (1978), and Grenada and Nicaragua (1979). Soviet troops were welcomed in Fidel Castro's Cuba for the first time since the 1962 missile crisis. Cuban troops traveled freely to Africa to prop up Marxist regimes there."
"In 1979 the Ayatollah Khomeini was able to establish his brutal theocratic rule over Iran, confident that America, having learned "the lessons of Vietnam," would never intervene."
We are winning not only the war in Iraq but the hearts and minds of most of the people. Now is not the time to quit but to get the job done and finished properly. Democrats should read the history of Vietnam and realize that because of them we lost that war and the world suffered because of that.
"Most people have never heard of Operation Frequent Wind, which ended on April 30, 1975, 33 years ago. But every American has seen pictures of it: the Marine helicopters evacuating the last U.S. personnel from the embassy in Saigon, hours before communist tanks rolled into the city. Thousands of desperate Vietnamese gathered at the embassy gate and begged to be taken with them. Others committed suicide."
...Actually, the U.S. had won the war in Vietnam on the battlefield, just as the surge has done today in Iraq. Over Easter 1972, South Vietnamese forces, backed by U.S. airpower, crushed the last communist offensive, killing nearly 100,000 North Vietnamese troops.
Because we left too early, Vietnamese were slaughtered after they were "liberated and the new communist regime "ordered somewhere between one- third to one-half of South Vietnam's population to pass through its "re-education" camps"...
"That number does not include the thousands of "boat people" who tried to flee the totalitarian nightmare of communist Vietnam, and perished at sea."
In Cambodia at least 1.5 million innocent Cambodians were "butchered or starved to death in the Khmer Rouge's killing fields and re-education camps..."
This pullout by the United States ushered in the most atrocious take over of various countries by the Marxist-Leninist thugs.
"Marxist-Leninist regimes emerged not only in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos, but in Ethiopia and Guinea Bissau (1974), Madagascar, Cape Verde, Mozambique, and Angola (1975), Afghanistan (1978), and Grenada and Nicaragua (1979). Soviet troops were welcomed in Fidel Castro's Cuba for the first time since the 1962 missile crisis. Cuban troops traveled freely to Africa to prop up Marxist regimes there."
"In 1979 the Ayatollah Khomeini was able to establish his brutal theocratic rule over Iran, confident that America, having learned "the lessons of Vietnam," would never intervene."
We are winning not only the war in Iraq but the hearts and minds of most of the people. Now is not the time to quit but to get the job done and finished properly. Democrats should read the history of Vietnam and realize that because of them we lost that war and the world suffered because of that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)