For a few worthless fiat bank notes you can get a wealth of knowledge on the current economic collapse from Austrian economist and senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute...
Thomas E. Woods.
This book takes all of one extended evening to read, but is a must read for those interested in the REAL reasons for the “current economic downturn” and contains all that one needs to prepare himself to refute the silly Keynesian arguments for more government intervention.
Woods nails this one down in laymen’s terms giving absolutely no one any excuse whatsoever to neglect their own education in regards to real economics.
He takes on the various fallacious reasons why the recession has happened and exonerates the bogeymen that the media and government officials tend to accuse while showing that centralized government planning is the culprit for all “booms and busts.”
The book…
Meltdown: A Free Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse.
Scrape up the money and order it now, then pass it along.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Saturday, May 2, 2009
The Unintended Consequences of Political Pandering
Texas governor Rick Perry may very well have been pandering to the crowd at a recent event in which he invoked the political philosophy of secession, but supporters of states’ rights are lauding his rhetoric at least.
The subject has been popping up a lot more lately. If one cares to remember the smear that Todd and Sarah Palin received for their involvement in the Alaskan Independence Party, they would note that in a sense, Pandora’s Box was opened.
Now considering the twenty two states that have resolutions in their respective states being considered reaffirming Article X of the Bill of Rights (Tenth Amendment), the subject is becoming more commonplace and a bit less controversial among the masses.
The media, though, has not been so kind and ironically so. Many have demonized Gov. Perry and the various independence movements as unpatriotic and treasonous. Funny thing is that under the same enumerated Bill of Rights that call for state sovereignty, there is a really popular article endearingly dubbed “freedom of the press.”
As to the allegations of being unpatriotic, one would assume that these idiots could connect the dots between the current desire of a people to peaceably disassociate themselves from an overgrown federal government that legislates nearly every aspect of their lives from afar and a people in the 1700’s who had a desire to peaceably disassociate themselves from an overgrown monarchy that legislated from afar.
One must ask these conformist, these statist…One must ask them with a hint of sarcasm, with the confidence of being much more intelligent and coherent than said statist…He must asked them, “Who the hell do you think the patriots were?”
Never-the-less, there will always be Loyalists who rush to defend Leviathan.
The good news is that those who favor states’ rights and reject the current system of government are usually much better informed than the antithesis. Furthermore, the breech of the subject itself allows for those of superior intellect to be more flagrant in their conversations about the subject.
The fact that what was once thought by the populace as being settled in 1865, is again becoming controversial to the point that all of the Royalists feel the need to openly condemn it and call for those involved to be ostracized and possibly charged with a crime is a great sign. It means they are taking it seriously.
So Governor Perry, in your sincerity or in your lack thereof, you have furthered a cause that is most primitive and basic to the history of these nation states and requisite in the determination of the authority of the state OVER the federal government.
The subject has been popping up a lot more lately. If one cares to remember the smear that Todd and Sarah Palin received for their involvement in the Alaskan Independence Party, they would note that in a sense, Pandora’s Box was opened.
Now considering the twenty two states that have resolutions in their respective states being considered reaffirming Article X of the Bill of Rights (Tenth Amendment), the subject is becoming more commonplace and a bit less controversial among the masses.
The media, though, has not been so kind and ironically so. Many have demonized Gov. Perry and the various independence movements as unpatriotic and treasonous. Funny thing is that under the same enumerated Bill of Rights that call for state sovereignty, there is a really popular article endearingly dubbed “freedom of the press.”
As to the allegations of being unpatriotic, one would assume that these idiots could connect the dots between the current desire of a people to peaceably disassociate themselves from an overgrown federal government that legislates nearly every aspect of their lives from afar and a people in the 1700’s who had a desire to peaceably disassociate themselves from an overgrown monarchy that legislated from afar.
One must ask these conformist, these statist…One must ask them with a hint of sarcasm, with the confidence of being much more intelligent and coherent than said statist…He must asked them, “Who the hell do you think the patriots were?”
Never-the-less, there will always be Loyalists who rush to defend Leviathan.
The good news is that those who favor states’ rights and reject the current system of government are usually much better informed than the antithesis. Furthermore, the breech of the subject itself allows for those of superior intellect to be more flagrant in their conversations about the subject.
The fact that what was once thought by the populace as being settled in 1865, is again becoming controversial to the point that all of the Royalists feel the need to openly condemn it and call for those involved to be ostracized and possibly charged with a crime is a great sign. It means they are taking it seriously.
So Governor Perry, in your sincerity or in your lack thereof, you have furthered a cause that is most primitive and basic to the history of these nation states and requisite in the determination of the authority of the state OVER the federal government.
Chains You Can Believe In
There must have been a spelling error in Obama’s campaign slogan. Either that or what he meant by change was that after he is elected he’ll change his policies.
Just this morning, the New York Times (that bulwark of journalisic integrity known for its cutting edge editorials; satire inserted)reported that the Obama administration is second guessing their decision to close Guantanamo Bay.
I am sitting here wondering what radical changes are in the works. By change I had assumed that Obama would insist on moving the country in the opposite direction that it was heading in the Bush administration, yet, he has only taken up Bush’s policies more aggressively.
Take the economy for example. The Bush administration pursued a hardcore Keynesian economic policy of formidable government intervention in the marketplace and personal lives of Americans.
Obama’s idea of change…?
Pursue the same policies much more aggressively. All the while Americans seem divided on which despot to support. The Obamanites can point to no clear changes that Obama has instituted or plans to institute. The Bushites really cannot say anything after the last eight years of King George W.
One may attempt to point to Obama’s promise to end the war in Iraq, yet even if he withdraws the US occupation of this sovereign country, it would be a purely semantical argument to insist that this is any kind of change considering the fact that he is merely transferring military might from one front to another (Afghanistan and Pakistan).
I believe the campaign slogan referred not to change, but to chains. Samuel Adams spoke of these same chains when he said so well…
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may your posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
Just this morning, the New York Times (that bulwark of journalisic integrity known for its cutting edge editorials; satire inserted)reported that the Obama administration is second guessing their decision to close Guantanamo Bay.
I am sitting here wondering what radical changes are in the works. By change I had assumed that Obama would insist on moving the country in the opposite direction that it was heading in the Bush administration, yet, he has only taken up Bush’s policies more aggressively.
Take the economy for example. The Bush administration pursued a hardcore Keynesian economic policy of formidable government intervention in the marketplace and personal lives of Americans.
Obama’s idea of change…?
Pursue the same policies much more aggressively. All the while Americans seem divided on which despot to support. The Obamanites can point to no clear changes that Obama has instituted or plans to institute. The Bushites really cannot say anything after the last eight years of King George W.
One may attempt to point to Obama’s promise to end the war in Iraq, yet even if he withdraws the US occupation of this sovereign country, it would be a purely semantical argument to insist that this is any kind of change considering the fact that he is merely transferring military might from one front to another (Afghanistan and Pakistan).
I believe the campaign slogan referred not to change, but to chains. Samuel Adams spoke of these same chains when he said so well…
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may your posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
