Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
Obama Thinks Killing Innocents Is A Joke
What a sick twisted society we live in when the emperor jokes about murder to the cackling applause of his servants.
Article by William Grigg here.
Article by William Grigg here.
Jim Traficant Still Full Of Fight
Looks like he is planning on staging a political comeback. God knows we definitely need a man who tells the Truth like Jim Traficant. He has my full support.
Full Story Here
Full Story Here
Forgotten Facts of American Labor History
Just about everything that people think they know about labor unions and wage rates is wrong.
The standard tale that practically every student hears over the course of his education is that before the emergence of labor unions, American workers were terribly exploited and their wages were consistently falling. The improvement in labor's condition was due entirely or at least in large part to labor unionism and favorable federal legislation. In the absence of these, it is widely assumed, people would still be working 80-hour weeks and children would still be working in mines.
This oft-heard tale is, however, almost entirely false, and those parts of it that are true (the low standard of living that people enjoyed in the nineteenth century, for example) are true for reasons other than those alleged by pro-union historians, who see in them only confirmation of their prejudices against the market economy.
As late as the 1920s, labor law in America was based on the following considerations.
Freedom of contract and association were essential principles. A laborer was perfectly free to reject any offer of compensation that an employer might make to him, and an employer was likewise entitled to reject any offer made by a laborer. An employee was free to withhold his labor services if unsatisfied with his employer's terms; likewise, a group of laborers jointly exercising this individual right were permitted to do so. No one, however, was allowed to prevent individuals who wished to work from exercising their right to do so.
Strikers -- like anyone else -- were forbidden to interfere with consumers' right to shop where they liked. And strikes could not obstruct suppliers from making deliveries, since to do so would again violate the rights of others. Finally, since the employer's plant was private property, the employer had the absolute right to decide who would be permitted to enter, and complete strangers who wished to enter for the purpose of agitating his employees could be lawfully excluded altogether.
This common-sense legal approach to labor unionism began to give way with the Norris-La Guardia Act, signed by Herbert Hoover in 1932. The legislation made "yellow dog" contracts -- in which an employee could be required to promise to refrain from union activity as a condition of employment -- unenforceable in the courts. The Act also exempted labor unions from prosecution under the Sherman Antitrust Act. Although the Sherman Act should certainly have been (and still should be) repealed, if there were ever an institution guilty of "restraint of trade" it was labor unions, which not only withheld their own labor but which also used intimidation and force to keep down non-union competition. They would henceforth be exempt from behavior that the law deemed criminal in any other context.
The Act also prohibited the federal courts from issuing injunctions against labor unions in some cases and seriously crippled their ability to do so in others. Subsequent Supreme Court decisions made clear that the Act in effect shielded unions from prosecution for activities they may have engaged in during labor disputes. The injunction had been used to put a stop to union violence and property destruction when local authorities seemed unwilling or unable to protect life and property. Unions hated them.
As labor historian Morgan Reynolds explains, "An injunction temporarily restrained union actions pending a trial and this explains the intense union campaign against its use in labor disputes because once violence-ridden strikes were enjoined for a few days, they were difficult to revive, reorganize, and rekindle."
It is one of the many myths of American labor history that the courts issued injunctions frequently and indiscriminately. Labor economist Sylvester Petro undertook a thorough study of the period from 1880 to 1932 and found injunctions to be exceedingly rare: federal injunctions were issued in not even one percent of all work stoppages, while state injunctions were issued in less than two percent of all work stoppages. And these few injunctions were issued not to thwart labor union activity per se but to put a stop to violence against persons and property. Now even this protection of the employer's rights -- yes, employers have rights, too -- would henceforth be absent.
The New Deal added the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, more commonly known as the Wagner Act, to the mix. It had once been the case that a worker who did not wish to join a union or pay its dues refrained from joining and was not obligated to pay dues. Thanks to the Wagner Act, that individual freedom disappeared. From then on, if a majority of workers in a given bargaining unit chose to unionize, then that union represented all the workers and could require them either to join or at least to pay dues.
The usual defense of such coercion is that since the Wagner Act called for a single certified bargaining agent to represent all workers in a given bargaining unit, it was only fair that all such workers be required to contribute something to the union. After all, it is argued, since all workers gain from the union's activities on their behalf, it would be wrong for them not to contribute toward union expenses. This objection overlooks the real problem, which is the idea of having an exclusive bargaining agent in the first place.
If unions were content to bargain solely on behalf of their own members, then there would be no problem of non-members getting union benefits for free. If individuals were allowed to represent themselves and to enter into contracts with their employers on their own terms, those who wished to remain non-union would not be "free riding" on the benefits bestowed by labor unions, since the union would simply not bargain on their behalf. But federal labor law no longer guarantees workers this freedom.
(As a result of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 -- which labor historians detest despite the mildness of its provisions, which did little to overturn settled labor law -- states have the right to pass "right-to-work" laws, which prohibit unions from attempting to force union membership and dues on workers as the price for keeping their jobs.)
Once officially designated by a majority of workers as the exclusive bargaining agent for all workers, the union is never required to stand for re-election. Even after all the workers who originally voted for the union have died or retired, the union is simply assumed to have the support of a majority of workers. The new slate of workers has no say in the matter at all.
The Wagner Act also forced employers to bargain "in good faith" with unions that were established by a majority of workers. Whether an employer had complied with the vague instruction to bargain "in good faith" would be determined by the all-powerful National Labor Relations Board.
Moreover, the Wagner Act also interfered with employers' freedom of speech by making it an "unfair labor practice" to attempt to influence their employees' decision whether to unionize or not. Employers were required to permit union organizers -- that is, total strangers -- who did not work for them to use company property for the purpose of persuading employees to unionize.
Furthermore, the Wagner Act gave labor unions a degree of legal insulation afforded to no other group in society. The Act made labor unions immune to claims of vicarious responsibility. In plain English, that means that labor unions are not legally responsible for any violence their members might commit, even if union officials themselves order the violence.
All of these legislative measures made it much easier for labor unions to accomplish their goals. In order to fulfill their stated purpose of increasing the wages of their members, labor unions must restrict an employer's access to alternative sources of labor. That is to say, nonunion workers who wish to seek employment on the terms offered by an employer whose firm is unionized must be prevented from doing so. Harvard University's Edward Chamberlin once described the unique legal status that labor unions had been granted:
If A is bargaining with B over the sale of his house, and if A were given the privileges of a modern labor union, he would be able (1) to conspire with all other owners of houses not to make any alternative offer to B, using violence or the threat of violence if necessary to prevent them, (2) to deprive B himself of access to any alternative offers, (3) to surround the house of B and cut off all deliveries, including food (except by parcel post), (4) to stop all movement from B's house, so that if he were for instance a doctor he could not sell his services and make a living, and (5) to institute a boycott of B's business. All of these privileges, if he were capable of carrying them out, would no doubt strengthen A's position. But they would not be regarded by anyone as part of "bargaining" -- unless A were a labor union.
No wonder Nobel Laureate F.A. Hayek once said, "We have now reached a state where [unions] have become uniquely privileged institutions to which the general rules of law do not apply."
In practice, during strikes the police have typically stood aside and done nothing in the face of union intimidation and even violence against non-union workers or those who simply wish to continue working. (This is one reason that the court injunction was so often sought in the past against violent strikes.) By means of this kind of coercion, labor unions are able to deprive employers of labor if they do not accede to union demands.
As Henry George wrote in the nineteenth century, "Those who tell you of trades unions bent on raising wages by moral suasion alone are like those who would tell you of tigers that live on oranges." The result of union activity, therefore, is to reduce the number of jobs in an industry and to raise the money wages of union labor, while at the same time relegating many workers, driven out of this line of work by the decreased quantity of labor demanded there, to other lines of work, whose money wages must decrease as a result of the greater supply of workers now forced to compete for them.
The net result is that the gains to certain workers are more than offset by the disabilities inflicted upon other workers. When union activity reduces the number of people who can be profitably employed in skilled trades, it correspondingly increases the number of skilled laborers who are forced to find work in fields that are well below their level of competence. The outcome of this displacement of skilled labor is no different from a situation in which laborers never possessed these skills in the first place. If union privilege prevents some workers from putting their skills to their proper use, the effect is the same as if they had never gone to the trouble to acquire them at all. Thus society produces below its potential, and wealth that would otherwise have been created never sees the light of day.
The ways in which labor unionism impoverishes society are legion, from the distortions in the labor market described above to union work rules that discourage efficiency and innovation. The damage that unions have inflicted on the economy in recent American history is actually far greater than anyone might guess. In a study published jointly in late 2002 by the National Legal and Policy Center and the John M. Olin Institute for Employment Practice and Policy, economists Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway of Ohio University calculated that labor unions have cost the American economy a whopping $50 trillion over the past 50 years alone.
That is not a misprint. "The deadweight economic losses are not one-shot impacts on the economy," the study explains. "What our simulations reveal is the powerful effect of the compounding over more than half a century of what appears at first to be small annual effects." Not surprisingly, the study did find that unionized labor earned wages 15 percent higher than those of their nonunion counterparts, but it also found that wages in general suffered dramatically as a result of an economy that is 30 to 40 percent smaller than it would have been in the absence of labor unionism.
Although labor unionism has actually made working people worse off, however, the usual argument for labor unionism and government legislation on behalf of labor is that in the absence of these things, employers will pay their workers unconscionably low wages.
Economist George Reisman proposes a useful thought experiment to the contrary. Suppose you own a car in New York City but eventually decide that the hassle involved in finding and paying for parking is simply too great, and you would like to get rid of the car for that reason. Suppose, further, that you have grown so frustrated with owning a car in the city that you would be willing to sell it for one dollar. Does that mean that you will in fact have to sell it for one dollar? Of course not. Given the great many potential buyers of your car, they will outbid each other. If a potential buyer offered you only one dollar, you would certainly turn him down even if, in a state of complete despair, you would have been willing to sell it at that amount. This person, because of his low bid, will miss out on the opportunity to own the car altogether since his rivals will simply outbid him.
Exactly the same process takes place in the labor market. The California State University's Charles Baird explains:
This idea, that workers without unions will inherently have a disadvantage in bargaining power relative to employers, is the basis for most individuals' support of unionism and is picked up again in the Wagner Act. But that disadvantage is a hoary myth. A worker's bargaining power depends on the worker's alternatives. If a worker either works for Employer A or does not work (i.e., if Employer A is a monopsonist), the worker has little bargaining power. If the worker has several employment alternatives, he has strong bargaining power. There may have been instances of monopsony or oligopsony in the 19th century, but... they were short-lived. Monopsony has not been a significant factor in the American labor market since the introduction and widespread use of the automobile.
The empirical evidence simply does not bear out the conventional wisdom regarding unions. If employers were really in a position to impose whatever wage rate they wished, then why in the decades prior to large-scale labor unionism did wages not diminish to near zero? (In fact, as we shall see below, real wages skyrocketed in the decades before modern labor law took shape.) For that matter, why did skilled workers earn more than unskilled workers? If firms were really in a position to tell workers to take or leave whatever pathetic wage they might choose to offer, why would they have felt a need to pay skilled workers more than unskilled workers? Why not just pay them both the same pittance?
The case for labor unionism does possess a superficial plausibility, but it is in fact entirely fallacious. Real wages rise not because of union activity but because of the process that George Reisman describes in his productivity theory of wages (which I describe here). In short, business investment in machinery increases the productivity of labor and therefore the output that the economy is capable of producing, and this greater supply puts downward pressure on prices.
As Reisman explains, "It is the productivity of labor that determines the supply of consumers' goods relative to the supply of labor, and thus the prices of consumers' goods relative to wage rates." This phenomenon is not always easy to see in an inflationary economy such as ours, in which prices of most goods seem to go up consistently. But the point remains: prices become lower than they would otherwise be, and all real incomes (wages included) increase.
This is why taxes on business and capital are so foolish and counterproductive. Such taxes hamper business investment, which is precisely what raises our standard of living. The vast bulk of high school teachers and college professors spend their time condemning the wickedness of businessmen and the wealthy, and describe taxation as a righteous method for redistributing the supposedly ill-gotten gains of the wealthy to the oppressed poor. To put it kindly, such people have not the faintest idea of how wealth is created, and their envy-driven policy proposals inevitably make society poorer than it would otherwise be.
The vast bulk of the existing scholarship on American labor history is essentially unreadable. It takes for granted all the economic myths of unionism, the essential righteousness of the union cause, and the moral perversity of anyone who would dare to oppose it. Major incidents in the history of American unionism, as with the Haymarket incident of 1886 and the Homestead Strike of 1892, are often misleadingly described in order to conform to the ideological demands of this one-dimensional morality play.
Labor historians and activists would doubtless be at a loss to explain why, at a time when unionism was numerically negligible (a whopping three percent of the American labor force was unionized by 1900) and federal regulation all but nonexistent, real wages in manufacturing climbed an incredible 50 percent in the United States from 1860--1890, and another 37 percent from 1890 to 1914, or why American workers were so much better off than their much more heavily unionized counterparts in Europe. Most of them seem to cope with these inconvenient facts by neglecting to mention them at all.
Labor economist W.H. Hutt referred to the Norris-La Guardia and Wagner Acts in 1973 as "economic blunders of the first magnitude." Economists Vedder and Gallaway find that New Deal labor legislation played a significant role in aggravating the unemployment problem. Both theory and history reveal the same conclusion: a society that genuinely wishes to become wealthier, to enjoy more leisure time, and to live longer will simply repeal all taxation on business and capital. That would do more for the material well-being of American workers than did all the storied episodes of labor's "struggle" -- labor historians' favorite word -- put together.
Reprinted from Mises.org.
The standard tale that practically every student hears over the course of his education is that before the emergence of labor unions, American workers were terribly exploited and their wages were consistently falling. The improvement in labor's condition was due entirely or at least in large part to labor unionism and favorable federal legislation. In the absence of these, it is widely assumed, people would still be working 80-hour weeks and children would still be working in mines.
This oft-heard tale is, however, almost entirely false, and those parts of it that are true (the low standard of living that people enjoyed in the nineteenth century, for example) are true for reasons other than those alleged by pro-union historians, who see in them only confirmation of their prejudices against the market economy.
As late as the 1920s, labor law in America was based on the following considerations.
Freedom of contract and association were essential principles. A laborer was perfectly free to reject any offer of compensation that an employer might make to him, and an employer was likewise entitled to reject any offer made by a laborer. An employee was free to withhold his labor services if unsatisfied with his employer's terms; likewise, a group of laborers jointly exercising this individual right were permitted to do so. No one, however, was allowed to prevent individuals who wished to work from exercising their right to do so.
Strikers -- like anyone else -- were forbidden to interfere with consumers' right to shop where they liked. And strikes could not obstruct suppliers from making deliveries, since to do so would again violate the rights of others. Finally, since the employer's plant was private property, the employer had the absolute right to decide who would be permitted to enter, and complete strangers who wished to enter for the purpose of agitating his employees could be lawfully excluded altogether.
This common-sense legal approach to labor unionism began to give way with the Norris-La Guardia Act, signed by Herbert Hoover in 1932. The legislation made "yellow dog" contracts -- in which an employee could be required to promise to refrain from union activity as a condition of employment -- unenforceable in the courts. The Act also exempted labor unions from prosecution under the Sherman Antitrust Act. Although the Sherman Act should certainly have been (and still should be) repealed, if there were ever an institution guilty of "restraint of trade" it was labor unions, which not only withheld their own labor but which also used intimidation and force to keep down non-union competition. They would henceforth be exempt from behavior that the law deemed criminal in any other context.
The Act also prohibited the federal courts from issuing injunctions against labor unions in some cases and seriously crippled their ability to do so in others. Subsequent Supreme Court decisions made clear that the Act in effect shielded unions from prosecution for activities they may have engaged in during labor disputes. The injunction had been used to put a stop to union violence and property destruction when local authorities seemed unwilling or unable to protect life and property. Unions hated them.
As labor historian Morgan Reynolds explains, "An injunction temporarily restrained union actions pending a trial and this explains the intense union campaign against its use in labor disputes because once violence-ridden strikes were enjoined for a few days, they were difficult to revive, reorganize, and rekindle."
It is one of the many myths of American labor history that the courts issued injunctions frequently and indiscriminately. Labor economist Sylvester Petro undertook a thorough study of the period from 1880 to 1932 and found injunctions to be exceedingly rare: federal injunctions were issued in not even one percent of all work stoppages, while state injunctions were issued in less than two percent of all work stoppages. And these few injunctions were issued not to thwart labor union activity per se but to put a stop to violence against persons and property. Now even this protection of the employer's rights -- yes, employers have rights, too -- would henceforth be absent.
The New Deal added the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, more commonly known as the Wagner Act, to the mix. It had once been the case that a worker who did not wish to join a union or pay its dues refrained from joining and was not obligated to pay dues. Thanks to the Wagner Act, that individual freedom disappeared. From then on, if a majority of workers in a given bargaining unit chose to unionize, then that union represented all the workers and could require them either to join or at least to pay dues.
The usual defense of such coercion is that since the Wagner Act called for a single certified bargaining agent to represent all workers in a given bargaining unit, it was only fair that all such workers be required to contribute something to the union. After all, it is argued, since all workers gain from the union's activities on their behalf, it would be wrong for them not to contribute toward union expenses. This objection overlooks the real problem, which is the idea of having an exclusive bargaining agent in the first place.
If unions were content to bargain solely on behalf of their own members, then there would be no problem of non-members getting union benefits for free. If individuals were allowed to represent themselves and to enter into contracts with their employers on their own terms, those who wished to remain non-union would not be "free riding" on the benefits bestowed by labor unions, since the union would simply not bargain on their behalf. But federal labor law no longer guarantees workers this freedom.
(As a result of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 -- which labor historians detest despite the mildness of its provisions, which did little to overturn settled labor law -- states have the right to pass "right-to-work" laws, which prohibit unions from attempting to force union membership and dues on workers as the price for keeping their jobs.)
Once officially designated by a majority of workers as the exclusive bargaining agent for all workers, the union is never required to stand for re-election. Even after all the workers who originally voted for the union have died or retired, the union is simply assumed to have the support of a majority of workers. The new slate of workers has no say in the matter at all.
The Wagner Act also forced employers to bargain "in good faith" with unions that were established by a majority of workers. Whether an employer had complied with the vague instruction to bargain "in good faith" would be determined by the all-powerful National Labor Relations Board.
Moreover, the Wagner Act also interfered with employers' freedom of speech by making it an "unfair labor practice" to attempt to influence their employees' decision whether to unionize or not. Employers were required to permit union organizers -- that is, total strangers -- who did not work for them to use company property for the purpose of persuading employees to unionize.
Furthermore, the Wagner Act gave labor unions a degree of legal insulation afforded to no other group in society. The Act made labor unions immune to claims of vicarious responsibility. In plain English, that means that labor unions are not legally responsible for any violence their members might commit, even if union officials themselves order the violence.
All of these legislative measures made it much easier for labor unions to accomplish their goals. In order to fulfill their stated purpose of increasing the wages of their members, labor unions must restrict an employer's access to alternative sources of labor. That is to say, nonunion workers who wish to seek employment on the terms offered by an employer whose firm is unionized must be prevented from doing so. Harvard University's Edward Chamberlin once described the unique legal status that labor unions had been granted:
If A is bargaining with B over the sale of his house, and if A were given the privileges of a modern labor union, he would be able (1) to conspire with all other owners of houses not to make any alternative offer to B, using violence or the threat of violence if necessary to prevent them, (2) to deprive B himself of access to any alternative offers, (3) to surround the house of B and cut off all deliveries, including food (except by parcel post), (4) to stop all movement from B's house, so that if he were for instance a doctor he could not sell his services and make a living, and (5) to institute a boycott of B's business. All of these privileges, if he were capable of carrying them out, would no doubt strengthen A's position. But they would not be regarded by anyone as part of "bargaining" -- unless A were a labor union.
No wonder Nobel Laureate F.A. Hayek once said, "We have now reached a state where [unions] have become uniquely privileged institutions to which the general rules of law do not apply."
In practice, during strikes the police have typically stood aside and done nothing in the face of union intimidation and even violence against non-union workers or those who simply wish to continue working. (This is one reason that the court injunction was so often sought in the past against violent strikes.) By means of this kind of coercion, labor unions are able to deprive employers of labor if they do not accede to union demands.
As Henry George wrote in the nineteenth century, "Those who tell you of trades unions bent on raising wages by moral suasion alone are like those who would tell you of tigers that live on oranges." The result of union activity, therefore, is to reduce the number of jobs in an industry and to raise the money wages of union labor, while at the same time relegating many workers, driven out of this line of work by the decreased quantity of labor demanded there, to other lines of work, whose money wages must decrease as a result of the greater supply of workers now forced to compete for them.
The net result is that the gains to certain workers are more than offset by the disabilities inflicted upon other workers. When union activity reduces the number of people who can be profitably employed in skilled trades, it correspondingly increases the number of skilled laborers who are forced to find work in fields that are well below their level of competence. The outcome of this displacement of skilled labor is no different from a situation in which laborers never possessed these skills in the first place. If union privilege prevents some workers from putting their skills to their proper use, the effect is the same as if they had never gone to the trouble to acquire them at all. Thus society produces below its potential, and wealth that would otherwise have been created never sees the light of day.
The ways in which labor unionism impoverishes society are legion, from the distortions in the labor market described above to union work rules that discourage efficiency and innovation. The damage that unions have inflicted on the economy in recent American history is actually far greater than anyone might guess. In a study published jointly in late 2002 by the National Legal and Policy Center and the John M. Olin Institute for Employment Practice and Policy, economists Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway of Ohio University calculated that labor unions have cost the American economy a whopping $50 trillion over the past 50 years alone.
That is not a misprint. "The deadweight economic losses are not one-shot impacts on the economy," the study explains. "What our simulations reveal is the powerful effect of the compounding over more than half a century of what appears at first to be small annual effects." Not surprisingly, the study did find that unionized labor earned wages 15 percent higher than those of their nonunion counterparts, but it also found that wages in general suffered dramatically as a result of an economy that is 30 to 40 percent smaller than it would have been in the absence of labor unionism.
Although labor unionism has actually made working people worse off, however, the usual argument for labor unionism and government legislation on behalf of labor is that in the absence of these things, employers will pay their workers unconscionably low wages.
Economist George Reisman proposes a useful thought experiment to the contrary. Suppose you own a car in New York City but eventually decide that the hassle involved in finding and paying for parking is simply too great, and you would like to get rid of the car for that reason. Suppose, further, that you have grown so frustrated with owning a car in the city that you would be willing to sell it for one dollar. Does that mean that you will in fact have to sell it for one dollar? Of course not. Given the great many potential buyers of your car, they will outbid each other. If a potential buyer offered you only one dollar, you would certainly turn him down even if, in a state of complete despair, you would have been willing to sell it at that amount. This person, because of his low bid, will miss out on the opportunity to own the car altogether since his rivals will simply outbid him.
Exactly the same process takes place in the labor market. The California State University's Charles Baird explains:
This idea, that workers without unions will inherently have a disadvantage in bargaining power relative to employers, is the basis for most individuals' support of unionism and is picked up again in the Wagner Act. But that disadvantage is a hoary myth. A worker's bargaining power depends on the worker's alternatives. If a worker either works for Employer A or does not work (i.e., if Employer A is a monopsonist), the worker has little bargaining power. If the worker has several employment alternatives, he has strong bargaining power. There may have been instances of monopsony or oligopsony in the 19th century, but... they were short-lived. Monopsony has not been a significant factor in the American labor market since the introduction and widespread use of the automobile.
The empirical evidence simply does not bear out the conventional wisdom regarding unions. If employers were really in a position to impose whatever wage rate they wished, then why in the decades prior to large-scale labor unionism did wages not diminish to near zero? (In fact, as we shall see below, real wages skyrocketed in the decades before modern labor law took shape.) For that matter, why did skilled workers earn more than unskilled workers? If firms were really in a position to tell workers to take or leave whatever pathetic wage they might choose to offer, why would they have felt a need to pay skilled workers more than unskilled workers? Why not just pay them both the same pittance?
The case for labor unionism does possess a superficial plausibility, but it is in fact entirely fallacious. Real wages rise not because of union activity but because of the process that George Reisman describes in his productivity theory of wages (which I describe here). In short, business investment in machinery increases the productivity of labor and therefore the output that the economy is capable of producing, and this greater supply puts downward pressure on prices.
As Reisman explains, "It is the productivity of labor that determines the supply of consumers' goods relative to the supply of labor, and thus the prices of consumers' goods relative to wage rates." This phenomenon is not always easy to see in an inflationary economy such as ours, in which prices of most goods seem to go up consistently. But the point remains: prices become lower than they would otherwise be, and all real incomes (wages included) increase.
This is why taxes on business and capital are so foolish and counterproductive. Such taxes hamper business investment, which is precisely what raises our standard of living. The vast bulk of high school teachers and college professors spend their time condemning the wickedness of businessmen and the wealthy, and describe taxation as a righteous method for redistributing the supposedly ill-gotten gains of the wealthy to the oppressed poor. To put it kindly, such people have not the faintest idea of how wealth is created, and their envy-driven policy proposals inevitably make society poorer than it would otherwise be.
The vast bulk of the existing scholarship on American labor history is essentially unreadable. It takes for granted all the economic myths of unionism, the essential righteousness of the union cause, and the moral perversity of anyone who would dare to oppose it. Major incidents in the history of American unionism, as with the Haymarket incident of 1886 and the Homestead Strike of 1892, are often misleadingly described in order to conform to the ideological demands of this one-dimensional morality play.
Labor historians and activists would doubtless be at a loss to explain why, at a time when unionism was numerically negligible (a whopping three percent of the American labor force was unionized by 1900) and federal regulation all but nonexistent, real wages in manufacturing climbed an incredible 50 percent in the United States from 1860--1890, and another 37 percent from 1890 to 1914, or why American workers were so much better off than their much more heavily unionized counterparts in Europe. Most of them seem to cope with these inconvenient facts by neglecting to mention them at all.
Labor economist W.H. Hutt referred to the Norris-La Guardia and Wagner Acts in 1973 as "economic blunders of the first magnitude." Economists Vedder and Gallaway find that New Deal labor legislation played a significant role in aggravating the unemployment problem. Both theory and history reveal the same conclusion: a society that genuinely wishes to become wealthier, to enjoy more leisure time, and to live longer will simply repeal all taxation on business and capital. That would do more for the material well-being of American workers than did all the storied episodes of labor's "struggle" -- labor historians' favorite word -- put together.
Reprinted from Mises.org.
Record Number of Jews Heading To Congress
I'm amazed that when someone mentions the New World Order people still scoff and act like a one world government is a "conspiracy theory" even though if they open their eyes the signs are all around.
Likewise I'm amazed that when people mention ZOG or Zionist Occupied Government people interpret this as some racial slur against jews with no basis in fact. Yet the evidence is there to support this claim 100% perhaps never more so than this year when a record number of jews are heading to the United States Congress.
I have posted a list of jews in Bush's and Obama's cabinet and it is clearly astounding for an ethnic group which is only 2% of the population. Anyone with a room temperature IQ knows that our foreign policy is 100% zionist in nature, it is crafted from the ground up by jews either openly communist, or so called neo conservatives. (Both systems were created by jews)
One thing is clear about jews is their love of acting. Be it in the cesspool of filth called hollywood or on a broader stage of politics. They posture around and act like democrats and republicans, liberals and conservatives are polar opposites and while this may appear true on an individual American level, it is blatantly obvious that in the halls of Congress as well as state governments these "polar opposites" are thick as thieves. No matter what the disagreement one thing they ALWAYS agree on is 100% support for the terror state of israel.
Here is an article referenced in the title of this post which goes into greater depth of the jews heading to gain further control of our fallen Nation.
Urgent Message From Ron Paul
Dear Liberty Activist,
The talk of "change" in Washington, D.C. is, as you know, a sham.
Nothing proves this more than the current debate on Senator Dodd's Restoring American Financial Stability Act, which you and I know should be called the Fed Empowerment Act. Senate leadership is hoping to cram more big government down our throats to cover up for the economic problems caused by – you guessed it – big government.
Our nation faces major challenges for which the freedom movement has the solutions, and this is no time to back down. While the Sanders amendment takes important steps toward more transparency, the thorough audit language we fought to pass in the House last year is no longer present.
But there is good news. Senator David Vitter will offer a strong Audit the Fed amendment to restore that language, but it needs all the help we can give it to pass.
A vote could come as soon as tomorrow.
Click here to read the important letter Campaign for Liberty's President, John Tate, has sent to every senator. Then, please take action to turn the heat up on your senators by phone, email and fax regarding the Vitter amendment.
Thank you for all you do in defense of freedom.
In Liberty,
Congressman Ron Paul
The talk of "change" in Washington, D.C. is, as you know, a sham.
Nothing proves this more than the current debate on Senator Dodd's Restoring American Financial Stability Act, which you and I know should be called the Fed Empowerment Act. Senate leadership is hoping to cram more big government down our throats to cover up for the economic problems caused by – you guessed it – big government.
Our nation faces major challenges for which the freedom movement has the solutions, and this is no time to back down. While the Sanders amendment takes important steps toward more transparency, the thorough audit language we fought to pass in the House last year is no longer present.
But there is good news. Senator David Vitter will offer a strong Audit the Fed amendment to restore that language, but it needs all the help we can give it to pass.
A vote could come as soon as tomorrow.
Click here to read the important letter Campaign for Liberty's President, John Tate, has sent to every senator. Then, please take action to turn the heat up on your senators by phone, email and fax regarding the Vitter amendment.
Thank you for all you do in defense of freedom.
In Liberty,
Congressman Ron Paul
Saturday, May 8, 2010
It Is White America! It Is OUR Country!
Photo: Mestizo students at this High School in Montebello, California raised a Mexican flag on the school’s flagpole and turned the US flag upside down. The date of this photo is unknown.
Hispanic students at Live Oak High were egged on by their school administrators to stage an anti-American flag demonstration during school hours. Earlier in the week five white students were disciplined for wearing American flag t-shirts to school!
From Morgan Hill Times…
About 200 Hispanic teens are marching in Morgan Hill yelling “We want respect!” and “Si se puede!” in reaction to a controversy ignited when the Live Oak High School principal effectively sent four students home for wearing T-shirts with American flags on them during Cinco de Mayo.
Mexican-American students felt the students were being disrespectful on the only day they celebrate their heritage while students sporting red, white and blue said it violated their First Amendment rights.
Six police cars and a Morgan Hill motorcycle officer have been cruising alongside the large group as it marches.
The group – mostly high school students – walked out of school this morning after the story of four students who were sent home because they wore American flag T-shirts went viral on TV and online. Many wear red, white and green and two large Mexico flags can be seen at the front of the line.
The students say they want people to know they’re proud of their heritage and they believe wearing red, white and blue on Cinco de Mayo is disrespectful.
1 in 8 Americans Depend On The Government For Food
Nearly 40 million Americans received food stamps - the latest in an ever-higher string of record enrollment that dates from December 2008 and the U.S. recession, according to a government update.
Food stamps are the primary federal anti-hunger program, helping poor people buy food. Enrollment is highest during times of economic distress. The jobless rate was 9.9 percent, the government said on Friday.
The Agriculture Department said 39.68 million people, or 1 in 8 Americans, were enrolled for food stamps during February, an increase of 260,000 from January. USDA updated its figures on Wednesday.
"This is the highest share of the U.S. population on SNAP/food stamps," said the anti-hunger group Food Research and Action Center, using the new name for food stamps, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). "Research suggests that one in three eligible people are not receiving ... benefits."
Enrollment has set a record each month since reaching 31.78 million in December 2008. USDA estimates enrollment will average 40.5 million people this fiscal year, which ends Sept 30, at a cost of up to $59 billion. For fiscal 2011, average enrollment is forecast for 43.3 million people.
Food stamps are the primary federal anti-hunger program, helping poor people buy food. Enrollment is highest during times of economic distress. The jobless rate was 9.9 percent, the government said on Friday.
The Agriculture Department said 39.68 million people, or 1 in 8 Americans, were enrolled for food stamps during February, an increase of 260,000 from January. USDA updated its figures on Wednesday.
"This is the highest share of the U.S. population on SNAP/food stamps," said the anti-hunger group Food Research and Action Center, using the new name for food stamps, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). "Research suggests that one in three eligible people are not receiving ... benefits."
Enrollment has set a record each month since reaching 31.78 million in December 2008. USDA estimates enrollment will average 40.5 million people this fiscal year, which ends Sept 30, at a cost of up to $59 billion. For fiscal 2011, average enrollment is forecast for 43.3 million people.
Friday, May 7, 2010
DJIA Suffers Biggest Drop Since 1987
If you look to the tags section on the side of this website the 2nd most popular topic I post about is things relating to the Economy. Until I made this post I never realized how often I discussed it but I guess it just proves how interested in the subjects of economics and markets. To be honest my personal portfolio and those I manage have steadily outperformed the markets, I am not an insider by any stretch nor even an expert but more of an educated layman who enjoys learning.
Today though I write though as somewhat of a cautionary post. Since the DJIA was around 15,000 and gold was under 300 and ounce, I have been advising people to steer clear of the market and move fiat currency into real assets. I made this post Nov. 7 2009 titled "The Recession Is Over, My Ass" which basically flies in the face of everything you hear regurgitated daily by the media. I encourage people to read that article as well.
On May 6 2010 the DJIA suffered it's worse single day loss since 1987. When I heard this immediately I thought of 2008 when the market was in literally freefall in it wasn't uncommon to have 500 point moves in a single session. As evidenced by my earlier post you can see that we are in more precarious footing today than ever and to assume that things are fine is asinine.
The cracks are spreading in the dam and it is only matter of time until it breaks. It could be months, years or even decades although I would be extremely surprised if it was more than a couple years.
Needless to say for the sake of time, I would advise anyone who rode the market down from 15k to 6k back up to 11k to cut your losses and get the hell out. Take this 100% rebound off the lows as an absolute Godsend and don't look back. We are on an unsustainable path as anyone with even a basic understandings of economics knows. You've gotta know when to hold em and know when to fold em, know when to walk away and know when to run. Now, is the time to run and fast.
Today though I write though as somewhat of a cautionary post. Since the DJIA was around 15,000 and gold was under 300 and ounce, I have been advising people to steer clear of the market and move fiat currency into real assets. I made this post Nov. 7 2009 titled "The Recession Is Over, My Ass" which basically flies in the face of everything you hear regurgitated daily by the media. I encourage people to read that article as well.
On May 6 2010 the DJIA suffered it's worse single day loss since 1987. When I heard this immediately I thought of 2008 when the market was in literally freefall in it wasn't uncommon to have 500 point moves in a single session. As evidenced by my earlier post you can see that we are in more precarious footing today than ever and to assume that things are fine is asinine.
The cracks are spreading in the dam and it is only matter of time until it breaks. It could be months, years or even decades although I would be extremely surprised if it was more than a couple years.
Needless to say for the sake of time, I would advise anyone who rode the market down from 15k to 6k back up to 11k to cut your losses and get the hell out. Take this 100% rebound off the lows as an absolute Godsend and don't look back. We are on an unsustainable path as anyone with even a basic understandings of economics knows. You've gotta know when to hold em and know when to fold em, know when to walk away and know when to run. Now, is the time to run and fast.
US Marines Kick Out Recruits With Confederate Flag Tattoos
When I first heard this I was outraged (not surprised) that the federal government would pull a stupid stunt like this.
However once I calmed down I've come to the conclusion that it's probably a good thing anyway. We don't need good Southern men off fighting wars for israel anyway. The time will come when these men do indeed need to go to war but we don't need even need to leave the country to fight it.
Here is the full story.
However once I calmed down I've come to the conclusion that it's probably a good thing anyway. We don't need good Southern men off fighting wars for israel anyway. The time will come when these men do indeed need to go to war but we don't need even need to leave the country to fight it.
Here is the full story.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Big Brother Flexes Muscle In PA
"We Know Who You Are"
Well if you know who we are you also know we are a 90 million man army the largest in the world. We are the US gun owners. YOU work for US not the other way around.
Well if you know who we are you also know we are a 90 million man army the largest in the world. We are the US gun owners. YOU work for US not the other way around.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Obama Stacking The Courts With Non White Marxists
Source
WASHINGTON
Lost in the gathering debate over President Barack Obama's next Supreme Court pick, a profound shift in the federal judiciary is taking place below the high court.
Working methodically, and drawing sporadic fire from left and right, Obama is gradually reshaping the U.S. courts.
Already, he's tipped the balance of two appellate circuits to Democratic-appointed majorities, with a third about to flip. He also is choosing a larger proportion of women and minorities for lifetime federal judgeships than other presidents.
The diversity of his nominees is "striking. He's clearly, I think, eclipsed everyone, and so early in the administration," said Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor who follows federal court issues.
A leading example of Obama's judicial makeover: the appeals court that serves Maryland, which is influential in national security matters.
Half of its judges were Republican appointees when Obama took office. One of them, J. Harvie Wilkinson III, argued, in a January 2009 article, against the prospect of a liberal Obama "takeover" of the court.
The Reagan appointee also noted the widespread reputation of the Richmond, Va.-based court, covering Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia and the Carolinas, as the most conservative in the country.
"I don't think you can say that anymore," said Gregory G. Katsas, a senior Justice Department official in the George W. Bush administration.
Obama nominees, including Judge Andre Davis of Baltimore, have given the circuit a 7-5 Democrat-appointee tilt that could grow to at least 10-5.
Nationwide, Obama is slowly eroding a partisan advantage Republicans created by holding the White House for 20 of the past 30 years.
"Few presidential decisions are more important than lifetime appointments to the federal bench," Alberto Gonzales, then George W. Bush's attorney general, said in 2006. "Judicial appointments often represent a president's most enduring legacy."
Whether a judge was appointed by a Republican or a Democrat "makes a huge difference," said Katsas, a former law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. While judges sometimes surprise presidents with their actions, Katsas said, "it's fair to say Obama's nominees are more likely to lean to the left than to the right."
The first black president, who once taught constitutional law, is already reducing the historic dominance of white men on the federal bench, by favoring women and minority nominees.
A recent study by the Alliance for Justice, a liberal advocacy group, found that Obama in his first year chose a higher proportion of female, black and Asian-American judges than other presidents during their terms.
That has been particularly true of his picks for appellate benches, the most powerful other than the Supreme Court. Of his first 19 nominees, six were women, five were African-American, two were Asian-American and two Hispanic; only six were white males.
Obama's initial 4th Circuit choice was Davis, a black U.S. district judge from Baltimore whose formal investiture ceremony was held Friday. The Senate has also confirmed Obama's second nominee to the circuit, Barbara Keenan, a white woman from Virginia.
The next nominees — one Hispanic, the other black — would, if confirmed, mean that white male judges were no longer a majority on the 4th Circuit.
Measuring Obama's impact on the ethnic and gender makeup of the federal judiciary is easier than gauging the effect he's having on ideology.
Conservative advocates and Republican politicians, in an effort to condition public opinion for the coming Supreme Court confirmation fight, are casting his appellate nominees as "activist judges."
The Republican argument is in line with a long-running attack theme that has kept Obama and the Democrats on the defensive.
Republican National Chairman Michael S. Steele, in a recent blog post, referred to the "out-of-the-mainstream judicial activists" Obama has chosen. A new Republican website highlights what the party describes as "shocking" examples of "liberal judicial activism" by Obama appellate nominees.
Liberals, meantime, have criticized from the other side.
Some are frustrated by what they regard as Obama's unwillingness, or inability, to begin duplicating a highly successful Republican strategy: planting young lawyers with strong ideological leanings on lower courts, then elevating them to the Supreme Court.
Ellen Lipton Hollander, recently nominated for a U.S. district judgeship in Maryland, fits the pattern that bothers critics on the left. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals judge from Baltimore will turn 61 this month.
She has long experience on the municipal and state bench, another hallmark of Obama judges that distinguishes him from recent presidents.
Judicial careerists are "very conservative choices, because you're not left to wonder whether this person will be a good judge," said Tobias.
The latest nominees to the 4th Circuit, which handles major national security cases because of its geographic jurisdiction over agencies like the CIA and states where 9/11 terror suspects have been held, are a pair of North Carolina state judges. James Wynn and Albert Diaz have backgrounds in the military justice system, and neither is considered particularly liberal.
University of Maryland law professor Sherrilyn A. Ifill has praised Obama's nominees to the court, which encompasses a region with the highest percentage of African-Americans of any circuit. But she also wrote in The Root, an online magazine, that he should seek "greater ideological diversity" and more women.
William P. Marshall, a University of North Carolina law professor and a director of the American Constitution Society, a liberal advocacy group, describes Obama's nominees as "high quality, high caliber, moderate and mainstream."
And yet, "mainstream now is a different definition than it was 20 years ago," Marshall said in an interview, noting that retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, a centrist Republican nominee when he joined the court, is regarded as perhaps its most liberal member today. "Some liberals are disappointed that there hasn't been an effort made to place the kind of people on the bench that can do battle with the trend."
Obama's push for his stimulus and health care plans, and other priorities, made the administration "very reluctant to expend political capital" on fights with Republican senators over liberal judges, Marshall said.
The pace of Obama's efforts to remake the courts was slowed by last summer's time-consuming confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor as the nation's first Hispanic Supreme Court justice, disorganization in the White House counsel's office and an effective Republican strategy that has blocked routine Senate confirmation of even the most noncontroversial picks.
With his term nearly one-third over, Obama has nominated 66 district and appellate judges and has 83 more vacancies to fill, according to the latest figures from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
Only 20 Obama nominees have been confirmed, and some liberal supporters worry that he is losing the opportunity to redirect a federal judiciary still dominated by Republican-appointed judges.
This year, though, Obama's nominations are coming more rapidly. He chose nearly as many judges in the past four months as in all of 2009. And he pleased liberals by selecting University of California-Berkeley law professor Goodwin Liu, 39, who would be the only Asian-American appellate judge and a potential future choice for the high court.
With another Supreme Court nomination fight about to slow other judicial confirmation activity — and with 2010 elections after that — Obama will need the rest of his term to reduce the backlog on the federal bench, perhaps with fewer Democratic senators to help him install left-leaning judges.
WASHINGTON
Lost in the gathering debate over President Barack Obama's next Supreme Court pick, a profound shift in the federal judiciary is taking place below the high court.
Working methodically, and drawing sporadic fire from left and right, Obama is gradually reshaping the U.S. courts.
Already, he's tipped the balance of two appellate circuits to Democratic-appointed majorities, with a third about to flip. He also is choosing a larger proportion of women and minorities for lifetime federal judgeships than other presidents.
The diversity of his nominees is "striking. He's clearly, I think, eclipsed everyone, and so early in the administration," said Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor who follows federal court issues.
A leading example of Obama's judicial makeover: the appeals court that serves Maryland, which is influential in national security matters.
Half of its judges were Republican appointees when Obama took office. One of them, J. Harvie Wilkinson III, argued, in a January 2009 article, against the prospect of a liberal Obama "takeover" of the court.
The Reagan appointee also noted the widespread reputation of the Richmond, Va.-based court, covering Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia and the Carolinas, as the most conservative in the country.
"I don't think you can say that anymore," said Gregory G. Katsas, a senior Justice Department official in the George W. Bush administration.
Obama nominees, including Judge Andre Davis of Baltimore, have given the circuit a 7-5 Democrat-appointee tilt that could grow to at least 10-5.
Nationwide, Obama is slowly eroding a partisan advantage Republicans created by holding the White House for 20 of the past 30 years.
"Few presidential decisions are more important than lifetime appointments to the federal bench," Alberto Gonzales, then George W. Bush's attorney general, said in 2006. "Judicial appointments often represent a president's most enduring legacy."
Whether a judge was appointed by a Republican or a Democrat "makes a huge difference," said Katsas, a former law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. While judges sometimes surprise presidents with their actions, Katsas said, "it's fair to say Obama's nominees are more likely to lean to the left than to the right."
The first black president, who once taught constitutional law, is already reducing the historic dominance of white men on the federal bench, by favoring women and minority nominees.
A recent study by the Alliance for Justice, a liberal advocacy group, found that Obama in his first year chose a higher proportion of female, black and Asian-American judges than other presidents during their terms.
That has been particularly true of his picks for appellate benches, the most powerful other than the Supreme Court. Of his first 19 nominees, six were women, five were African-American, two were Asian-American and two Hispanic; only six were white males.
Obama's initial 4th Circuit choice was Davis, a black U.S. district judge from Baltimore whose formal investiture ceremony was held Friday. The Senate has also confirmed Obama's second nominee to the circuit, Barbara Keenan, a white woman from Virginia.
The next nominees — one Hispanic, the other black — would, if confirmed, mean that white male judges were no longer a majority on the 4th Circuit.
Measuring Obama's impact on the ethnic and gender makeup of the federal judiciary is easier than gauging the effect he's having on ideology.
Conservative advocates and Republican politicians, in an effort to condition public opinion for the coming Supreme Court confirmation fight, are casting his appellate nominees as "activist judges."
The Republican argument is in line with a long-running attack theme that has kept Obama and the Democrats on the defensive.
Republican National Chairman Michael S. Steele, in a recent blog post, referred to the "out-of-the-mainstream judicial activists" Obama has chosen. A new Republican website highlights what the party describes as "shocking" examples of "liberal judicial activism" by Obama appellate nominees.
Liberals, meantime, have criticized from the other side.
Some are frustrated by what they regard as Obama's unwillingness, or inability, to begin duplicating a highly successful Republican strategy: planting young lawyers with strong ideological leanings on lower courts, then elevating them to the Supreme Court.
Ellen Lipton Hollander, recently nominated for a U.S. district judgeship in Maryland, fits the pattern that bothers critics on the left. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals judge from Baltimore will turn 61 this month.
She has long experience on the municipal and state bench, another hallmark of Obama judges that distinguishes him from recent presidents.
Judicial careerists are "very conservative choices, because you're not left to wonder whether this person will be a good judge," said Tobias.
The latest nominees to the 4th Circuit, which handles major national security cases because of its geographic jurisdiction over agencies like the CIA and states where 9/11 terror suspects have been held, are a pair of North Carolina state judges. James Wynn and Albert Diaz have backgrounds in the military justice system, and neither is considered particularly liberal.
University of Maryland law professor Sherrilyn A. Ifill has praised Obama's nominees to the court, which encompasses a region with the highest percentage of African-Americans of any circuit. But she also wrote in The Root, an online magazine, that he should seek "greater ideological diversity" and more women.
William P. Marshall, a University of North Carolina law professor and a director of the American Constitution Society, a liberal advocacy group, describes Obama's nominees as "high quality, high caliber, moderate and mainstream."
And yet, "mainstream now is a different definition than it was 20 years ago," Marshall said in an interview, noting that retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, a centrist Republican nominee when he joined the court, is regarded as perhaps its most liberal member today. "Some liberals are disappointed that there hasn't been an effort made to place the kind of people on the bench that can do battle with the trend."
Obama's push for his stimulus and health care plans, and other priorities, made the administration "very reluctant to expend political capital" on fights with Republican senators over liberal judges, Marshall said.
The pace of Obama's efforts to remake the courts was slowed by last summer's time-consuming confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor as the nation's first Hispanic Supreme Court justice, disorganization in the White House counsel's office and an effective Republican strategy that has blocked routine Senate confirmation of even the most noncontroversial picks.
With his term nearly one-third over, Obama has nominated 66 district and appellate judges and has 83 more vacancies to fill, according to the latest figures from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
Only 20 Obama nominees have been confirmed, and some liberal supporters worry that he is losing the opportunity to redirect a federal judiciary still dominated by Republican-appointed judges.
This year, though, Obama's nominations are coming more rapidly. He chose nearly as many judges in the past four months as in all of 2009. And he pleased liberals by selecting University of California-Berkeley law professor Goodwin Liu, 39, who would be the only Asian-American appellate judge and a potential future choice for the high court.
With another Supreme Court nomination fight about to slow other judicial confirmation activity — and with 2010 elections after that — Obama will need the rest of his term to reduce the backlog on the federal bench, perhaps with fewer Democratic senators to help him install left-leaning judges.
Dr. Rand Paul Supports Israel
I have considered writing about this for quite some time but have abstained. Now though with the last email I received from Dr. Paul's campaign I can't hold back.
As I wrote back in December 2009 the other "libertarian" who would like to shake up Washington, Peter Schiff, has as far as I'm concerned, shown his true neo con zionist roots and no longer receives my support in any form or fashion.
The following is a letter I received from Dr. Rand Paul's campaign.
“Well, hello everyone. This is Dr. James Dobson, speaking as a private individual.”
“Have you ever made an embarrassing mistake? I did just that last week. I was given misleading information about the candidacy of Dr. Rand Paul, who is running in the Republican Primary for the U.S. Senate. Senior members of the GOP told me Dr. Paul is pro-choice and that he opposes many conservative perspectives, so I endorsed his opponent.”
“But now I’ve received further information from OB/GYN’s in Kentucky whom I trust, and from interviewing the candidate himself.”
“I now know that he is avidly pro life. He believes that life begins at conception.”
“He opposes earmarking and supports Israel. He identifies with the Tea Party movement and believes in home schooling. Sounds like my kind of man.”
“If I lived in Kentucky, I would vote for Dr. Rand Paul. Would you consider sending him to the U.S. Senate to shake things up in Washington?”
Anyone who has any knowledge of the atrocities committed by the state of israel will have serious problems with Dobson's claim that Dr. Paul "supports israel" I recommend a fantastic documentary on the subject which can be found here it's called Peace Propaganda and the Promised Land.
The film is certainly not the sole source of information regarding the terror state but it is a good starting place.
Needless to say any politician who "supports israel" I am against 100%. We send israel around 30 billion dollars per year, not to mention fight wars for them according to Congressman Jim Traficant. I do not believe the governments version of 9/11 but even if you do there is no question whatsoever that we are loathed in the middle east for the SOLE REASON that we support israel in it's horrific genocide of the Palestinian people.
In good conscience I can no longer support Dr. Rand Paul's campaign financially or through this blog.
As a side note I find it interesting that Dobson claims Paul opposes earmarking which his father correctly points out are the only way to allocate funds to your district. In short congress votes on a mammoth budget, but if you do not earmark where the money goes undoubtedly it only goes to the well connected in secret. So by earmarking you can see any money trail. It is also of importance that Dr. Paul ends up voting against the budget anyway.
As I wrote back in December 2009 the other "libertarian" who would like to shake up Washington, Peter Schiff, has as far as I'm concerned, shown his true neo con zionist roots and no longer receives my support in any form or fashion.
The following is a letter I received from Dr. Rand Paul's campaign.
“Well, hello everyone. This is Dr. James Dobson, speaking as a private individual.”
“Have you ever made an embarrassing mistake? I did just that last week. I was given misleading information about the candidacy of Dr. Rand Paul, who is running in the Republican Primary for the U.S. Senate. Senior members of the GOP told me Dr. Paul is pro-choice and that he opposes many conservative perspectives, so I endorsed his opponent.”
“But now I’ve received further information from OB/GYN’s in Kentucky whom I trust, and from interviewing the candidate himself.”
“I now know that he is avidly pro life. He believes that life begins at conception.”
“He opposes earmarking and supports Israel. He identifies with the Tea Party movement and believes in home schooling. Sounds like my kind of man.”
“If I lived in Kentucky, I would vote for Dr. Rand Paul. Would you consider sending him to the U.S. Senate to shake things up in Washington?”
Anyone who has any knowledge of the atrocities committed by the state of israel will have serious problems with Dobson's claim that Dr. Paul "supports israel" I recommend a fantastic documentary on the subject which can be found here it's called Peace Propaganda and the Promised Land.
The film is certainly not the sole source of information regarding the terror state but it is a good starting place.
Needless to say any politician who "supports israel" I am against 100%. We send israel around 30 billion dollars per year, not to mention fight wars for them according to Congressman Jim Traficant. I do not believe the governments version of 9/11 but even if you do there is no question whatsoever that we are loathed in the middle east for the SOLE REASON that we support israel in it's horrific genocide of the Palestinian people.
In good conscience I can no longer support Dr. Rand Paul's campaign financially or through this blog.
As a side note I find it interesting that Dobson claims Paul opposes earmarking which his father correctly points out are the only way to allocate funds to your district. In short congress votes on a mammoth budget, but if you do not earmark where the money goes undoubtedly it only goes to the well connected in secret. So by earmarking you can see any money trail. It is also of importance that Dr. Paul ends up voting against the budget anyway.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Who Are The Jews Behind Palin 2012?
Source
When Sarah Palin was asked by Barbara Walters late last year whether she supported a freeze on settlement growth in the West Bank, Palin issued an emphatic no. But her reasoning confounded many: “More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead. And I don’t think that the Obama administration has any right to tell Israel that the Jewish settlements cannot expand.”
Who were these Jews, and why were they “flocking”? Those predisposed to be critical of the former Alaska governor and Republican vice presidential nominee, such as writer and blogger Jeffrey Goldberg, saw Palin’s evangelical Christian roots showing. She was clearly expressing some kind of end-of-days theology, he said, that demands the ingathering of Jews before the Second Coming and its accompanying rapture (an event that doesn’t bode well for the Jews).
But Goldberg’s reading, though certainly the dominant interpretation, was not the only one. Benyamin Korn, a Philadelphia-based activist and former editor of the Jewish Exponent, heard something less apocalyptic in Palin’s words.
“If you work with Nefesh B’Nefesh, then you know exactly what she meant,” Korn said, referring to the Zionist group that facilitates North American immigration to Israel. “She understands that Zionism, which means the Jews should live in the Land of Israel, is a vital force. That’s all.”
Korn is the founder of a new group called Jewish Americans for Sarah Palin, and his efforts are part of some recent Jewish support that has been trickling in the direction of the hockey mom from Wasilla. Even though American Jews have repeatedly disapproved of her in large numbers in poll after poll, giving her abysmally low approval ratings, her recent high-profile jabs at the president have earned her support from some of the most prominent Jewish conservatives today.
Not only does she continue to receive the hearty backing of William Kristol, editor and publisher of The Weekly Standard and contributor to Fox News, but at the end of March, Norman Podhoretz, former editor of Commentary and godfather of the neoconservative movement, took to the op-ed page of The Wall Street Journal to offer a “defense of Sarah Palin.” He compared the ridicule that has greeted her arrival on the national scene to the laughter at Ronald Reagan’s expense when Reagan became the Republican presidential nominee. Podhoretz’s argument boiled down to this: “What she does know — and in this respect, she does resemble Reagan — is that the United States has been a force for good in the world, which is more than Barack Obama, whose IQ is no doubt higher than hers, has yet to learn.”
Podhoretz closed by dramatically proclaiming that he would “rather have Sarah Palin sitting in the Oval Office than Barack Obama.”
But these are neoconservative intellectuals, most of whom — as an article in the January issue of Commentary by Jennifer Rubin illustrated — are spending their time trying to figure out why Palin “rubs Jews the wrong way.” Is there anyone in the American Jewish community at large willing to wear a Palin 2012 button? Korn thinks there is, and it’s this demand he’s hoping to fulfill.
It should be said that as of yet, Jewish Americans for Sarah Palin has not published a list of the “doctors, lawyers, professors, rabbis” that Korn said support his efforts. At this point, there is little evidence that his constituency is more than one — though Korn has managed to put together a fairly professional-looking website. But with an increasing number of American Jews anxious about what they see as the undue pressure that Obama is applying on Israel, Korn thinks that more of them will come to see Palin’s value.
He doesn’t hide the fact that, in his eyes, her main strength is just how much she irritates those on the left.
“She has the ability to get under the skin of the opponents and particularly this president,” Korn said. “And from the point of view of someone who opposes what this president is doing, particularly on Israel policy, I’m glad that she has that ability.”
Korn himself has an unusual background. Up until the mid-1980s, he was a self-proclaimed “left-wing organizer” who taught pan-African studies, was a Central America solidarity activist and worked at a jazz radio station in Philadelphia with Mumia Abu-Jamal. He even voted for Jimmy Carter in 1980. He then had a radical transformation, switched to Orthodox from Reform Judaism and became a strident pro-Israel activist, an opponent of, as he put it, the “series of concessions that are called the peace process.” Eventually Korn, now 54, even headed the Zionist Organization of America.
His attraction to Palin began when he first saw her speak at the Republican National Convention. He had never even heard of her before then.
“I was captivated — not by her looks, for goodness sake — but by her charisma, her brilliance, her grasp not just of the issues, but of the moment,” Korn said. “Which is a very different thing in politics, to understand the moment. And it is because of my understanding of the moment that we hurried to launch this organization. I have been an admirer of hers since then.”
Korn went live with his website, JewsforSarah.com, earlier than expected in mid-April, a response, he said, to comments by President Obama that appeared in the New York Times on April 14, linking continued conflicts in the Middle East with the danger to American soldiers
in the region. Korn called this a “modern blood libel” and decided that it was the right time to go public with his creation — “our motivation is so strongly in reaction to what is coming out of Obama,” Korn insisted.
It’s not clear though that Korn or any other high-profile Jewish supporter can swing American Jews behind Palin. A recent blog post by Jonathan Chait on The New Republic’s website in mid-April, titled “The Non-Mystery of Why Jews Hate Palin,” pointed to recent comments in which Palin referred to the United States as a “Christian nation” and questioned the separation of church and state. No wonder, he wrote, that Jews find her distasteful.
And yet, as Palin gains acceptance, however small, in certain Jewish quarters, she undoubtedly becomes more credible for a larger American Jewish audience, of which some members are eager to find a fitting opponent to the president.
Seth Lipsky, former editor of the New York Sun and of this publication, is friendly with Kristol and Podhoretz and shares some of their neoconservative views. He doesn’t offer an endorsement of Palin, but he does welcome the formation of Korn’s group and believes that Palin is “staking out a terrific set of positions.”
Like many others, Palin and the current moment remind Lipsky of an earlier era.
“I’ve been telling people that the situation reminds me a little bit of the 1984 presidential campaign, when Vice President Mondale challenged Reagan,” Lipsky wrote in an e-mail to the Forward. “Mondale discovered that Reagan was under the impression that once an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile was fired, it could be recalled in flight and brought back to base. He ridiculed Reagan mercilessly. I said or wrote at the time that this was the difference between Mondale and Reagan — Mondale knew how the missile worked and Reagan knew whom to point it at. And that’s how I feel about Mrs. Palin. She may not know as many details as some of the other candidates, but she comprehends whom we’re up against.”
When Sarah Palin was asked by Barbara Walters late last year whether she supported a freeze on settlement growth in the West Bank, Palin issued an emphatic no. But her reasoning confounded many: “More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead. And I don’t think that the Obama administration has any right to tell Israel that the Jewish settlements cannot expand.”
Who were these Jews, and why were they “flocking”? Those predisposed to be critical of the former Alaska governor and Republican vice presidential nominee, such as writer and blogger Jeffrey Goldberg, saw Palin’s evangelical Christian roots showing. She was clearly expressing some kind of end-of-days theology, he said, that demands the ingathering of Jews before the Second Coming and its accompanying rapture (an event that doesn’t bode well for the Jews).
But Goldberg’s reading, though certainly the dominant interpretation, was not the only one. Benyamin Korn, a Philadelphia-based activist and former editor of the Jewish Exponent, heard something less apocalyptic in Palin’s words.
“If you work with Nefesh B’Nefesh, then you know exactly what she meant,” Korn said, referring to the Zionist group that facilitates North American immigration to Israel. “She understands that Zionism, which means the Jews should live in the Land of Israel, is a vital force. That’s all.”
Korn is the founder of a new group called Jewish Americans for Sarah Palin, and his efforts are part of some recent Jewish support that has been trickling in the direction of the hockey mom from Wasilla. Even though American Jews have repeatedly disapproved of her in large numbers in poll after poll, giving her abysmally low approval ratings, her recent high-profile jabs at the president have earned her support from some of the most prominent Jewish conservatives today.
Not only does she continue to receive the hearty backing of William Kristol, editor and publisher of The Weekly Standard and contributor to Fox News, but at the end of March, Norman Podhoretz, former editor of Commentary and godfather of the neoconservative movement, took to the op-ed page of The Wall Street Journal to offer a “defense of Sarah Palin.” He compared the ridicule that has greeted her arrival on the national scene to the laughter at Ronald Reagan’s expense when Reagan became the Republican presidential nominee. Podhoretz’s argument boiled down to this: “What she does know — and in this respect, she does resemble Reagan — is that the United States has been a force for good in the world, which is more than Barack Obama, whose IQ is no doubt higher than hers, has yet to learn.”
Podhoretz closed by dramatically proclaiming that he would “rather have Sarah Palin sitting in the Oval Office than Barack Obama.”
But these are neoconservative intellectuals, most of whom — as an article in the January issue of Commentary by Jennifer Rubin illustrated — are spending their time trying to figure out why Palin “rubs Jews the wrong way.” Is there anyone in the American Jewish community at large willing to wear a Palin 2012 button? Korn thinks there is, and it’s this demand he’s hoping to fulfill.
It should be said that as of yet, Jewish Americans for Sarah Palin has not published a list of the “doctors, lawyers, professors, rabbis” that Korn said support his efforts. At this point, there is little evidence that his constituency is more than one — though Korn has managed to put together a fairly professional-looking website. But with an increasing number of American Jews anxious about what they see as the undue pressure that Obama is applying on Israel, Korn thinks that more of them will come to see Palin’s value.
He doesn’t hide the fact that, in his eyes, her main strength is just how much she irritates those on the left.
“She has the ability to get under the skin of the opponents and particularly this president,” Korn said. “And from the point of view of someone who opposes what this president is doing, particularly on Israel policy, I’m glad that she has that ability.”
Korn himself has an unusual background. Up until the mid-1980s, he was a self-proclaimed “left-wing organizer” who taught pan-African studies, was a Central America solidarity activist and worked at a jazz radio station in Philadelphia with Mumia Abu-Jamal. He even voted for Jimmy Carter in 1980. He then had a radical transformation, switched to Orthodox from Reform Judaism and became a strident pro-Israel activist, an opponent of, as he put it, the “series of concessions that are called the peace process.” Eventually Korn, now 54, even headed the Zionist Organization of America.
His attraction to Palin began when he first saw her speak at the Republican National Convention. He had never even heard of her before then.
“I was captivated — not by her looks, for goodness sake — but by her charisma, her brilliance, her grasp not just of the issues, but of the moment,” Korn said. “Which is a very different thing in politics, to understand the moment. And it is because of my understanding of the moment that we hurried to launch this organization. I have been an admirer of hers since then.”
Korn went live with his website, JewsforSarah.com, earlier than expected in mid-April, a response, he said, to comments by President Obama that appeared in the New York Times on April 14, linking continued conflicts in the Middle East with the danger to American soldiers
in the region. Korn called this a “modern blood libel” and decided that it was the right time to go public with his creation — “our motivation is so strongly in reaction to what is coming out of Obama,” Korn insisted.
It’s not clear though that Korn or any other high-profile Jewish supporter can swing American Jews behind Palin. A recent blog post by Jonathan Chait on The New Republic’s website in mid-April, titled “The Non-Mystery of Why Jews Hate Palin,” pointed to recent comments in which Palin referred to the United States as a “Christian nation” and questioned the separation of church and state. No wonder, he wrote, that Jews find her distasteful.
And yet, as Palin gains acceptance, however small, in certain Jewish quarters, she undoubtedly becomes more credible for a larger American Jewish audience, of which some members are eager to find a fitting opponent to the president.
Seth Lipsky, former editor of the New York Sun and of this publication, is friendly with Kristol and Podhoretz and shares some of their neoconservative views. He doesn’t offer an endorsement of Palin, but he does welcome the formation of Korn’s group and believes that Palin is “staking out a terrific set of positions.”
Like many others, Palin and the current moment remind Lipsky of an earlier era.
“I’ve been telling people that the situation reminds me a little bit of the 1984 presidential campaign, when Vice President Mondale challenged Reagan,” Lipsky wrote in an e-mail to the Forward. “Mondale discovered that Reagan was under the impression that once an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile was fired, it could be recalled in flight and brought back to base. He ridiculed Reagan mercilessly. I said or wrote at the time that this was the difference between Mondale and Reagan — Mondale knew how the missile worked and Reagan knew whom to point it at. And that’s how I feel about Mrs. Palin. She may not know as many details as some of the other candidates, but she comprehends whom we’re up against.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)