http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/10/historian-david-bartons-book-on-thomas-jefferson-pulled-from-stores/
David Barton, an evangelical activist and writer often cited as a
"historian" by conservative political figures like former House
Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee,
stirred up such a firestorm of controversy with his latest book "The
Jefferson Lies" that his publisher now claims to have "lost
confidence" in the text, opting Thursday evening to pull it from
stores.
The announcement by Christian mega-publisher Thomas Nelson comes after
readers of The History News Network at George Mason University elected
Barton's latest work as "the least credible history book in print." It
was also challenged by an assemblage of "10 conservative Christian
professors" in the recently released book, "Getting Jefferson Right,"
which accuses Barton of grossly misrepresenting the nation's third
president.
The author of "Getting Jefferson Right," Warren Throckmorton, fact-
checked Barton's book and found a number of basic historical facts
that Barton got wrong, like Barton's claim that Jefferson invested in
an American printing of the Bible, when in fact he only bought one
copy. Barton also claimed that Jefferson was barred by law from
freeing his slaves, but that too is objectively false. Professors
sought out by Throckmorton — all of whom believe that America was
founded as a Christian nation — said that Barton's writing seems too
eager to depict Jefferson as an adamant Christian, glossing over his
less than conventional views of religion and the Christian deity
figure.
The especially egregious claims about slavery struck a chord with a
group of African American pastors and Jewish leaders in Cincinatti,
who called for a boycott of Barton's publisher for allowing Barton to
offer a justification for Jefferson owning slaves.
"David Barton falsely claims that Thomas Jefferson was unable to free
his slaves," one of the pastors said in a media advisory issued
Tuesday. "In fact, Jefferson was allowed to free his slaves under
Virginia law, but failed to do it. The Jefferson Lies glosses over
Jefferson's real record on slaveholding, and minimizes Jefferson's
racist views."
That apparently wasn't lost on Nelson. Just one day after National
Public Radio featured a scathing profile of Barton that ran some fact
checking on some of his more dubious claims, Nelson's top brass
decided that was quite enough. A corporate spokesperson told Christian
news publication World on Thursday that all copies of "The Jefferson
Lies" would be pulled off the Internet and removed from bookstores.
"[In] the course of our review learned that there were some historical
details included in the book that were not adequately supported," a
spokesperson repeatedly said. "Because of these deficiencies we
decided that it was in the best interest of our readers to stop the
publication and distribution."
By Friday morning, Barton's the book had vanished from Nelson's
website. Their online store, however, still features titles like:
"Showdown with Nuclear Iran" by conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi;
"Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated
Washington" by Paul Sperry; "Illegals," an anti-immigrant screed by
Thomas Nelson; "Heaven Is For Real," by the parents of a little boy
who claims he experienced the Christian vision of an afterlife
paradise; and "The Quotable Rogue," a collection of Sarah Palin
quotes.
For Barton, having his book pulled by a seemingly friendly Christian
publishing house is an enormous defeat. This type of humiliation is
incredibly rare for professional writers, and just two in recent years
spring to mind: James Frey, who fabricated his story of overcoming
drug addiction in "A Million Little Pieces," and Jonah Lehrer, who
made up fake Bob Dylan quotes in his book "Imagine: How Creativity
Works."
Despite the book's factual ineptitude, Barton's publishing company
WallBuilders is already offering copies of "The Jefferson Lies" at a
discount.
On Aug 13, 1:26 pm, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are you this so totally backward, or are you just so pissed off
> ---
> neither ... just intolerant of those who would try to make the USA a
> religious state.
>
> Christians and Christianity was the founding precepts of the U.S.,
> ----
> why not mention the jewish founding precepts also?
> our secular government doesn't recognize christianity as anything
> other than a protected religion.
>
> LOL! Pitiful PlainOl. Goofy too.
> ---
> armed with a secular Constitution that keeps kooky religious myth
> believers in the cross hairs and out of influence.
> LOL!
>
> On Aug 11, 8:17 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Geesh.....Are you this so totally backward, or are you just so pissed off
> > that Christians and Christianity was the founding precepts of the U.S.,
> > and you want to re-write history so bad you can taste it?
>
> > LOL! Pitiful PlainOl. Goofy too.
>
> > On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 10:56 PM, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com
>
> > > wrote:
> > > I remain curious in SEEING what these 'Christian principles and
> > > tenets' might be.
> > > ----
> > > let me go first ... !!!
> > > first ... they think that the principles that were adopted were
> > > christian principles, which in many cases is a faulty presumption.
>
> > > Examples:
>
> > > Religious freedom - Nothing unique to christians. Didn't the Romans
> > > allow the jews to practice their religion?
> > > Is that what the christians are offering muslims today in America?
>
> > > Sovereign authority of God, not sovereignty of the state - Thousands
> > > of government have given authority to a god.
> > > They are demanding that non-believers submit to a mythical authority.
>
> > > Sanctity of life - They are still trying to outlaw abortion, stem cell
> > > research, suicide, etc.
>
> > > All men are sinners - Pushing their mythical religious guilt onto
> > > others. Very protestant.
>
> > > All men created equal - christians, like jews and muzzies, don't
> > > consider non-believers equal.
>
> > > Judicial, legislative, and executive branches - Not unique to
> > > christianity. Can still produce terrible decisions.
>
> > > Church protected from state control (& taxation), but church to
> > > influence the state. - Oh, like the religious state of israel? No
> > > thanks.
>
> > > Republican form of government and warnings against kings but in favor
> > > of Godly rulers. - It's not the government job to promote those they
> > > see as godly. Finding honest men is better than finding religious myth
> > > believers.
>
> > > Importance of governing self and family as first level of governance.
> > > - Yet they endorse intervention in the middle east.
>
> > > Fair trial with witnesses. - not unique to christianity nor cited in
> > > decision.
>
> > > Private property rights. - not uniquely christian
>
> > > --------------------------------------
>
> > > Justice Brewer was the author of the unanimous opinion of the Court in
> > > Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States (143 U.S. 457, 36 L.Ed.
> > > 226, 12 S. Ct. 511 February 29, 1892), which addressed a dispute over
> > > an employment contract between an Anglican priest and the titular
> > > church. Justice Brewer's statement in that opinion, "These, and many
> > > other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial
> > > declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a
> > > Christian nation" is often incorrectly cited as part of the
> > > controlling ruling in the matter, which is not the case. Indeed,
> > > Justice Brewer's book, The United States: A Christian Nation,
> > > published in 1905,contained the following passage:
>
> > > But in what sense can [the United States] be called a Christian
> > > nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion
> > > or the people are compelled in any manner to support it. On the
> > > contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that 'congress shall
> > > make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the
> > > free exercise thereof.' Neither is it Christian in the sense that all
> > > its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians. On the
> > > contrary, all religions have free scope within its borders. Numbers of
> > > our people profess other religions, and many reject all. [...] Nor is
> > > it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a
> > > condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service,
> > > or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact,
> > > the government as a legal organization is independent of all
> > > religions.
>
> > > On Aug 10, 1:20 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > I remain curious in SEEING what these 'Christian principles and tenets'
> > > might be.
> > > > I am especially interested in primary source materials where <insert
> > > Founder> claims <book/chapter/verse> applies to <article/section/clause>
> > > and similar.
> > > > The DoI, for instance, impugns the Divine Rights of Kings -- which is
> > > the biblically based Government.
> > > > Regard$,
> > > > --MJ
> > > > The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example
> > > of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are
> > > now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture,
> > > hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in
> > > their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American
> > > governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in
> > > America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be
> > > pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the
> > > gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those
> > > at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it
> > > will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely
> > > by the use of reason and the senses....
> > > > -- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the
> > > United States of America" [1787-1788];At 01:58 PM 8/10/2012, you wrote:As
> > > much as you and your secularist friends hate to hear, it must really suck,
> > > to see the truth Plain Ol.....That this Nation was, and still is founded
> > > upon Christian principles and tenets. No matter whether you like it, or
> > > don't like it, this, is your heritage.
>
> > > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 7:03 PM, plainolamerican <
> > > plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:the German government of the 1920s
> > > enthusiastically supported andpromoted Barnes's views as exonerating their
> > > country, while thepostwar West German government accepted national
> > > responsibility forthe Holocaust, solicited forgiveness and paid reparations
> > > to Jewishsurvivors.On Aug 10, 10:03 am, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:> Ever read Harry Elmer Barnes?>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 9:51 AM,
> > > Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com>wrote:>>>>>>>> > Here's a short
> > > video of one of the "Churches" in the heart of D.C.;> > worth a
> > > watch.....This should fit the bill of MJ's definition of> > "revisionist
> > > history":>> >http://stg.do/Iwpc>> > --> > Thanks for being part of
> > > "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.> > For options & help seehttp://
> > > groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum>> > * Visit our other community
> > > athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>> > *
> > > It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.> > * Read the
> > > latest breaking news, and more.--Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum"
> > > at Google Groups.For options & help seehttp://
> > > groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum* Visit our other community
> > > athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/*It'sactive and moderated. Register and
> > > vote in our polls.* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
> > > > --
> > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > > --
> > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Monday, August 13, 2012
Re: Revisionist History 101: What Secularists Don't Want You To Know:
Are you this so totally backward, or are you just so pissed off
---
neither ... just intolerant of those who would try to make the USA a
religious state.
Christians and Christianity was the founding precepts of the U.S.,
----
why not mention the jewish founding precepts also?
our secular government doesn't recognize christianity as anything
other than a protected religion.
LOL! Pitiful PlainOl. Goofy too.
---
armed with a secular Constitution that keeps kooky religious myth
believers in the cross hairs and out of influence.
LOL!
On Aug 11, 8:17 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Geesh.....Are you this so totally backward, or are you just so pissed off
> that Christians and Christianity was the founding precepts of the U.S.,
> and you want to re-write history so bad you can taste it?
>
> LOL! Pitiful PlainOl. Goofy too.
>
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 10:56 PM, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > I remain curious in SEEING what these 'Christian principles and
> > tenets' might be.
> > ----
> > let me go first ... !!!
> > first ... they think that the principles that were adopted were
> > christian principles, which in many cases is a faulty presumption.
>
> > Examples:
>
> > Religious freedom - Nothing unique to christians. Didn't the Romans
> > allow the jews to practice their religion?
> > Is that what the christians are offering muslims today in America?
>
> > Sovereign authority of God, not sovereignty of the state - Thousands
> > of government have given authority to a god.
> > They are demanding that non-believers submit to a mythical authority.
>
> > Sanctity of life - They are still trying to outlaw abortion, stem cell
> > research, suicide, etc.
>
> > All men are sinners - Pushing their mythical religious guilt onto
> > others. Very protestant.
>
> > All men created equal - christians, like jews and muzzies, don't
> > consider non-believers equal.
>
> > Judicial, legislative, and executive branches - Not unique to
> > christianity. Can still produce terrible decisions.
>
> > Church protected from state control (& taxation), but church to
> > influence the state. - Oh, like the religious state of israel? No
> > thanks.
>
> > Republican form of government and warnings against kings but in favor
> > of Godly rulers. - It's not the government job to promote those they
> > see as godly. Finding honest men is better than finding religious myth
> > believers.
>
> > Importance of governing self and family as first level of governance.
> > - Yet they endorse intervention in the middle east.
>
> > Fair trial with witnesses. - not unique to christianity nor cited in
> > decision.
>
> > Private property rights. - not uniquely christian
>
> > --------------------------------------
>
> > Justice Brewer was the author of the unanimous opinion of the Court in
> > Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States (143 U.S. 457, 36 L.Ed.
> > 226, 12 S. Ct. 511 February 29, 1892), which addressed a dispute over
> > an employment contract between an Anglican priest and the titular
> > church. Justice Brewer's statement in that opinion, "These, and many
> > other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial
> > declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a
> > Christian nation" is often incorrectly cited as part of the
> > controlling ruling in the matter, which is not the case. Indeed,
> > Justice Brewer's book, The United States: A Christian Nation,
> > published in 1905,contained the following passage:
>
> > But in what sense can [the United States] be called a Christian
> > nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion
> > or the people are compelled in any manner to support it. On the
> > contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that 'congress shall
> > make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the
> > free exercise thereof.' Neither is it Christian in the sense that all
> > its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians. On the
> > contrary, all religions have free scope within its borders. Numbers of
> > our people profess other religions, and many reject all. [...] Nor is
> > it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a
> > condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service,
> > or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact,
> > the government as a legal organization is independent of all
> > religions.
>
> > On Aug 10, 1:20 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > I remain curious in SEEING what these 'Christian principles and tenets'
> > might be.
> > > I am especially interested in primary source materials where <insert
> > Founder> claims <book/chapter/verse> applies to <article/section/clause>
> > and similar.
> > > The DoI, for instance, impugns the Divine Rights of Kings -- which is
> > the biblically based Government.
> > > Regard$,
> > > --MJ
> > > The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example
> > of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are
> > now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture,
> > hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in
> > their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American
> > governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in
> > America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be
> > pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the
> > gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those
> > at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it
> > will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely
> > by the use of reason and the senses....
> > > -- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the
> > United States of America" [1787-1788];At 01:58 PM 8/10/2012, you wrote:As
> > much as you and your secularist friends hate to hear, it must really suck,
> > to see the truth Plain Ol.....That this Nation was, and still is founded
> > upon Christian principles and tenets. No matter whether you like it, or
> > don't like it, this, is your heritage.
>
> > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 7:03 PM, plainolamerican <
> > plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:the German government of the 1920s
> > enthusiastically supported andpromoted Barnes's views as exonerating their
> > country, while thepostwar West German government accepted national
> > responsibility forthe Holocaust, solicited forgiveness and paid reparations
> > to Jewishsurvivors.On Aug 10, 10:03 am, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:> Ever read Harry Elmer Barnes?>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 9:51 AM,
> > Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com>wrote:>>>>>>>> > Here's a short
> > video of one of the "Churches" in the heart of D.C.;> > worth a
> > watch.....This should fit the bill of MJ's definition of> > "revisionist
> > history":>> >http://stg.do/Iwpc>> > --> > Thanks for being part of
> > "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.> > For options & help seehttp://
> > groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum>> > * Visit our other community
> > athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>> > *
> > It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.> > * Read the
> > latest breaking news, and more.--Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum"
> > at Google Groups.For options & help seehttp://
> > groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum* Visit our other community
> > athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/*It's active and moderated. Register and
> > vote in our polls.* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
> > > --
> > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
---
neither ... just intolerant of those who would try to make the USA a
religious state.
Christians and Christianity was the founding precepts of the U.S.,
----
why not mention the jewish founding precepts also?
our secular government doesn't recognize christianity as anything
other than a protected religion.
LOL! Pitiful PlainOl. Goofy too.
---
armed with a secular Constitution that keeps kooky religious myth
believers in the cross hairs and out of influence.
LOL!
On Aug 11, 8:17 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Geesh.....Are you this so totally backward, or are you just so pissed off
> that Christians and Christianity was the founding precepts of the U.S.,
> and you want to re-write history so bad you can taste it?
>
> LOL! Pitiful PlainOl. Goofy too.
>
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 10:56 PM, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > I remain curious in SEEING what these 'Christian principles and
> > tenets' might be.
> > ----
> > let me go first ... !!!
> > first ... they think that the principles that were adopted were
> > christian principles, which in many cases is a faulty presumption.
>
> > Examples:
>
> > Religious freedom - Nothing unique to christians. Didn't the Romans
> > allow the jews to practice their religion?
> > Is that what the christians are offering muslims today in America?
>
> > Sovereign authority of God, not sovereignty of the state - Thousands
> > of government have given authority to a god.
> > They are demanding that non-believers submit to a mythical authority.
>
> > Sanctity of life - They are still trying to outlaw abortion, stem cell
> > research, suicide, etc.
>
> > All men are sinners - Pushing their mythical religious guilt onto
> > others. Very protestant.
>
> > All men created equal - christians, like jews and muzzies, don't
> > consider non-believers equal.
>
> > Judicial, legislative, and executive branches - Not unique to
> > christianity. Can still produce terrible decisions.
>
> > Church protected from state control (& taxation), but church to
> > influence the state. - Oh, like the religious state of israel? No
> > thanks.
>
> > Republican form of government and warnings against kings but in favor
> > of Godly rulers. - It's not the government job to promote those they
> > see as godly. Finding honest men is better than finding religious myth
> > believers.
>
> > Importance of governing self and family as first level of governance.
> > - Yet they endorse intervention in the middle east.
>
> > Fair trial with witnesses. - not unique to christianity nor cited in
> > decision.
>
> > Private property rights. - not uniquely christian
>
> > --------------------------------------
>
> > Justice Brewer was the author of the unanimous opinion of the Court in
> > Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States (143 U.S. 457, 36 L.Ed.
> > 226, 12 S. Ct. 511 February 29, 1892), which addressed a dispute over
> > an employment contract between an Anglican priest and the titular
> > church. Justice Brewer's statement in that opinion, "These, and many
> > other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial
> > declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a
> > Christian nation" is often incorrectly cited as part of the
> > controlling ruling in the matter, which is not the case. Indeed,
> > Justice Brewer's book, The United States: A Christian Nation,
> > published in 1905,contained the following passage:
>
> > But in what sense can [the United States] be called a Christian
> > nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion
> > or the people are compelled in any manner to support it. On the
> > contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that 'congress shall
> > make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the
> > free exercise thereof.' Neither is it Christian in the sense that all
> > its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians. On the
> > contrary, all religions have free scope within its borders. Numbers of
> > our people profess other religions, and many reject all. [...] Nor is
> > it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a
> > condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service,
> > or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact,
> > the government as a legal organization is independent of all
> > religions.
>
> > On Aug 10, 1:20 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > I remain curious in SEEING what these 'Christian principles and tenets'
> > might be.
> > > I am especially interested in primary source materials where <insert
> > Founder> claims <book/chapter/verse> applies to <article/section/clause>
> > and similar.
> > > The DoI, for instance, impugns the Divine Rights of Kings -- which is
> > the biblically based Government.
> > > Regard$,
> > > --MJ
> > > The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example
> > of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are
> > now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture,
> > hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in
> > their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American
> > governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in
> > America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be
> > pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the
> > gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those
> > at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it
> > will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely
> > by the use of reason and the senses....
> > > -- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the
> > United States of America" [1787-1788];At 01:58 PM 8/10/2012, you wrote:As
> > much as you and your secularist friends hate to hear, it must really suck,
> > to see the truth Plain Ol.....That this Nation was, and still is founded
> > upon Christian principles and tenets. No matter whether you like it, or
> > don't like it, this, is your heritage.
>
> > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 7:03 PM, plainolamerican <
> > plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:the German government of the 1920s
> > enthusiastically supported andpromoted Barnes's views as exonerating their
> > country, while thepostwar West German government accepted national
> > responsibility forthe Holocaust, solicited forgiveness and paid reparations
> > to Jewishsurvivors.On Aug 10, 10:03 am, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:> Ever read Harry Elmer Barnes?>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 9:51 AM,
> > Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com>wrote:>>>>>>>> > Here's a short
> > video of one of the "Churches" in the heart of D.C.;> > worth a
> > watch.....This should fit the bill of MJ's definition of> > "revisionist
> > history":>> >http://stg.do/Iwpc>> > --> > Thanks for being part of
> > "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.> > For options & help seehttp://
> > groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum>> > * Visit our other community
> > athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>> > *
> > It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.> > * Read the
> > latest breaking news, and more.--Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum"
> > at Google Groups.For options & help seehttp://
> > groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum* Visit our other community
> > athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/*It's active and moderated. Register and
> > vote in our polls.* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
> > > --
> > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
The Amazing Ethanol Scam
Were this but the exception instead of the template ...
The Amazing Ethanol Scam
Jeffrey Tucker · August 13, 2012
Corn prices are officially through the roof, spiking to record highs. It's been headed this way through six years of crazy volatility. Now the spike is undeniable. At the same time, crop yields are lower they have been since 1995.
Everyone blames the drought, as if the market can't normally handle a supply change. The real problem is that the corn market is fundamentally misshaped by government interventions that have made a mess of this and many more markets. The distortions are never contained, but spread and spread.
The implications are quite radical, especially given the food price riots around the world the last time this happened.
It is probably going to hit the U.S. this time. Internationally, some writers are raising the specter of a price-driven famine in parts of the world.
"Corn is the single most important commodity for retail food," Richard Volpe, an economist for the USDA told the Los Angeles Times. "Corn is either directly or indirectly in about three-quarters of all food consumers buy."
Fine, then, answer me this, Mr. Government Economist Man: Why is 40% of the corn crop being burned up in our gas tanks? The answer is a Soviet-like, fascist-like, stupid-like government mandate. It is actually relatively new. It came about in 2005 and 2007. It mixes nearly all the gas we can buy with a sticky product now in rather short supply.
Of all the government regulations I've looked at in detail over the last 10 years, the ethanol mandate is, by far, the worst. There are no grounds on which it is defensible. None!
Of course, you might just think that it is great to vastly subsidize Illinois farmland and corn growers and ethanol makers, at the expense of everyone else in the planet and for zero savings in energy. In that case, we should agree to disagree.
I don't recall much debate in 2005 and 2007 when these draconian, civilization-attacking laws were imposed in the name of the environment and security. If a debate took place, it sure blew right past me. Organizations like the Institute for Energy Research and newsletters like The Daily Reckoning were trying to draw people's attention to what was taking place, but most people figured this was just some wonky and forgettable concern.
Kate Incontrera spoke the truth in the The Daily Reckoning, July 16, 2007: "One of the obvious side effects of the ethanol craze is that the price of corn has risen 73% in the past year but that isn't the only food whose price is on the rise… And because animal feed with corn in it is more expensive, that cost trickles down to chicken, beef, eggs, cheese and making soda-chugging Americans cringe high fructose corn syrup."
Also, from 2006, Greg Guenthner predicted everything that was coming down the road. It is worth your time to have a look at this report, just to demonstrate that some people had their eyes on the trends that matter.
The more you look at this, the more you see that this is halfway to the realization of the freakiest dream of the Rousseauian left: the abolition of the internal-combustion engine as we know it. It is a sledgehammer to the whole idea of market-provided energy. And paradoxically, it represents the worst of crony capitalism: an outright subsidy to agribusiness.
Looking this up and examining the history, it appears that government has been trying to put corn in our gas tanks for decades, even back to the 1960s. There were tax breaks, subsidies, lofty national goals, smiley stickers for executives who publicly backed this nonsense, but none of it took. Finally, our masters brought out the brass knuckles and everyone shaped up, culminating in a coercive mandate imposed six years ago.
Now we are stuck with this de facto mandate that we have to put corn in our gas tanks, all based on the kooky idea that fossil fuels are just too primitive, that we have to mix our gas with a movie-theater treat to make it truly clean and efficient.
But clean and efficient are two things that ethanol is not. The reason your edger and weed whacker don't fire up in the spring months is most likely due to the presence of corn in the tiny gas tanks. The fuel mixture does not stay stable over time and tends to gum up engines. This is why the store shelves are filled with gas-tank additives of all sorts that did not used to exist. The whole point is to correct for the mess that ethanol makes.
Of course, there is a huge industry out there dedicated to debunking the idea that there is anything the matter with ethanol. But here's the problem: People who make the pro-ethanol argument are either 1) the same people who think we ought to turn our toilets into composting pits or 2) speaking for industries highly dependent on the many forms of ethanol subsidies, so they have every incentive to deny the obvious for as long as possible.
But ask people who depend on a stable and reliable fuel for their livelihoods, and sometimes their lives. Talk to any boaters. You don't have to know any. Head over to any boaters' forums and see what they say. They go out of their way to find the few gas stations that actually sell ethanol-free gasoline, mainly because they can't afford to take risks that come with bad gas and bad engines. They find stations that sell no ethanol gas, like those listed at pure-gas.org.
Another fact: Though people have thought for centuries that corn is a decent fuel, it took the mandates to force it into cars. Why? Because consumers knew better. Manufacturers knew better. The petroleum industry knew better. Government and the corn industry had a different idea and gave it to us all good and hard.
Nor is it efficient. As even Paul Krugman admits, "Even on optimistic estimates, producing a gallon of ethanol from corn uses most of the energy the gallon contains." We also have to add the huge expenditure associated with fuel additives, engine fixes, lawn mower replacements and the vast frustration that comes with the regulatory wrecking of the internal-combustion engine.
Now let's look at what's happened to crops since 2005. The percentage of crops devoted to corn have gone from 24% in 1999 to 30% today. Meanwhile, the crops devoted to soybeans, hay and wheat have all gone down, thereby increasing feed costs for ranchers and consumers. Again, this is not the market talking. This is not what any actual market players are pushing. This all results from government mandates.
Meanwhile, the price index of Illinois farmland has tripled in the same period. Even though every price signal would otherwise indicate to farmers to plant less corn, they plant more. And even though land values all over the U.S. went into a major bust in 2008 and following, Illinois farmland goes up and up. This is a result of government intervention, building artificiality into the system and creating unpredictable distortions.
It almost seems hard to believe. It's a scandal that government has degraded home appliances, indoor plumbing, paint, cosmetics, gas cans and so much else. Yet the ethanol nonsense might be the worst of all, because it represents a fundamental attack on the technology and literal fuel of modernity itself. As you look back at it, it's been going on a very long time, from the initial ban on lead fuels, and now look where we are.
In the name of efficiency and "clean fuels," the government is shutting down the technology essential to life as we know it. And the spillover effects are everywhere, affecting nearly everything we eat. As usual, all these regulations are premised on the supposition that conditions will never change and that the state can take the existing world and pound it into its preferred shape. But the existing world as the state knows it is always a world of the past. Introduce one change and the whole model blows up.
That is what is happening with ethanol right now. The mandate is causing vast distortions and crazy costs for everything and everything. The scandal is how little we know or care. Maybe famine will make the difference?
http://lfb.org/today/the-amazing-ethanol-scam/
Re: **JP** Gandi Siasat
Perhaps you are very impressed with the clean siasat of Asif Ali Zardari, Ch Shujaat Hussain, Altaf Hussain, and Nawaz Sharif. Surely we deserve them. That is why they are there, and will perhaps stay there. God help you and God help us.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197
2012/8/11 hafeez rehman <hrehman11@gmail.com>
سیاست یا سیاستدانوں پہ اعتبار کیسا؟
عمران خان نے ایک ٹاک شو میں یہ بات کہی تھی کہ "اللہ مجھے شیخ رشید جیسا سیاستدان کبھی نہ بنائے"اور پھر اس کے جواب میں شیخ رشیدنے کہا تھا "عمران ایک معمولی سا کپتان تھا اور اب یہ تانگے کی سواری ہے" مگر آج 2012میں ان کے جذبات دیکھ کرا ور سن کر ہنسی آتی ہے عمران خان کہتا ہے "شیخ رشید جیسے باوقار سیاستدان بہت کم پید ا ہوتے ہےں" اورجواب میں شیخ صاحب فرماتے ہیں "عمران خان امید کی کرن ہیں"سیاست رے سیاست تیری کونسی کل سیدھی؟--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197
Re: Pics and toons 8/13/12 (6)
On 13 August 2012 10:35, Travis <baconlard@gmail.com> wrote:
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Pics and toons 8/13/12 (6)
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Pics and toons 8/13/12 (5)
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Pics and toons 8/13/12 (4)
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Pics and toons 8/13/12 (3)
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Pics and toons 8/13/12 (2)
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Pics and toons 8/13/12 (1)
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
The Marketing of Paul Ryan
The Marketing of Paul Ryan
Romney's 'libertarian' running mate is anything but
by Justin Raimondo, August 13, 2012
The Romney campaign is making a major effort to reach out to the Tea Party, grassroots conservative activists, and Ron Paul's libertarian supporters. They've not only invited Rand Paul to speak at the Tampa convention, they've also scheduled a "Tribute to Ron Paul" video to be shown to the delegates. However, these are mere crumbs: the video is not likely to highlight Paul's more interesting positions, such as his vociferous opposition to the American empire and its endless wars.
No, the real cake, complete with quasi-"libertarian" frosting, is Paul Ryan, whose addition to the ticket opens up the prospect of having Ayn Rand, the late novelist and philosopher of "Objectivism," become a campaign issue. I can't wait for someone to accuse the Republicans of endorsing "terrorism" on the grounds that The Fountainhead, Rand's best-selling 1943 novel, climaxes with the hero blowing up a home for mentally challenged orphans. Oh wait …
That some "libertarians" are ready, willing, and able to swallow this guff, I have no doubt. They claim Ryan " gets the free market." Well, whoop-de-doo! So does the Chinese Communist party, these days.
However, he doesn't really "get it" at all, not even to the extent that the heirs of Deng Xiaoping do, because he thinks we can still have an overseas empire and a "limited" government, with low taxes and "free" enterprise. The Chicoms to use right-wing Republican phraseology are "isolationists," i.e. their foreign policy amounts to minding their own business and making as much money as possible. Ryan, on the other hand, is all about maintaining "American leadership" in the world, and the way he tells it, "leadership" is a polite euphemism for domination.
In a speech before the Alexander Hamilton Society where else? Ryan gave full-throated expression to what American foreign policy would look like under his watch, and while the vice-presidency is an office with little power, from the tone of the speech the office of the Vice President in a Republican administration would once again become a nest of neocons lobbying for more and bigger wars.
Ryan may be a neocon drone, but he's no Dan Quayle: he realizes, as he put it in his talk to the Hamiltonians, that "our fiscal policy and our foreign policy are on a collision course; and if we fail to put our budget on a sustainable path, then we are choosing decline as a world power."
Translation: we can't have an empire, given our present financial straits. So what's the solution? To any normal American, who never wanted an empire to begin with, the answer is simple: give up the imperial pretensions to "global leadership," and tend to our own ill-used and leached-out garden. Ryan, however, is a creature of Washington, and this is unthinkable inside the Beltway: it would be a most grievous blow to the self-esteem of these worthies if they had to exchange the imperial purple for a plain republican cloth coat. Why, no Serious Person would even suggest such a thing! So instead of stating the facts, he makes up some of his own:
"Our fiscal crisis is above all a spending crisis that is being driven by the growth of our major entitlement programs: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. In 1970, these programs consumed about 20 percent of the budget. Today that number has grown to over 40 percent.
"Over the same period, defense spending has shrunk as a share of the federal budget from about 39 percent to just under 16 percent even as we conduct an ambitious global war on terrorism. The fact is, defense consumes a smaller share of the national economy today than it did throughout the Cold War."
This is a flat out fabrication. As David Callahan of Reuters put it:
"Ryan is wrong and misleading when he argues that defense spending is shrinking. He says that defense as a percentage of GDP has declined from its 'Cold War average of 7.5 percent to 4.6 percent today.' What he doesn't say is that this share is up from the 1990s. Defense spending ranged between 3 percent and 3.4 percent of GDP from 1996 to 2001, according to budget data from the Office of Management and Budget. Likewise, while Ryan says that such spending as a percentage of all federal outlays is down from 25 percent three decades ago to 20 percent today, he doesn't mention that defense spending constituted just 16 percent of federal outlays in 1999."
The infamous Ryan budget wants to raise military spending and declares any cuts off limits because, don't you know, it's a "strategic" matter, and not a question of dollars-and-cents. But what is this grand "strategic" vision he wants to throw money at?
"Decline is a choice," avers Ryan, citing neocon oracle Charles Krauthammer, but he never defines his terms, only implies their meaning. What is "decline"? To Ryan, the supposed free market fundamentalist, it has little to do with economics, but is essentially measured by military power. He excoriates Britain for "ceding leadership of the Western world to the United States" at "the turn of the century." Yet the Brits, exhausted by decades of taking up the "white man's burden," had no choice but to pull back: the alternative was to pour money and lives into fighting insurgent peoples from India to Africa and the Far East.
Does Ryan really believe the Brits should've held on to India in spite of Gandhi's heroic struggle for independence? Try explaining that one to the Indian Ambassador, Mr. Vice President.
Yes, Ryan is right when he declares that "the unsustainable trajectory of government spending is accelerating the nation toward the most predictable economic crisis in American history." What was even more predictable, however, is the response of our elites, who refuse to even scale down, never mind abandon, their grandiose visions of a world-spanning hegemony, because they are ideologically and most important of all emotionally invested in the imperial project. They like comparing themselves to the lords and ladies of the former British empire, and indeed in Washington we have all the pomp and circumstance except for the hereditary titles.
Ryan claims "years of ignoring the real drivers of our debt have left us with a profound structural problem," and to him this means throwing grandmothers out in the street rather than cut one dime from billions going to Lockheed. The "Ryan budget," endorsed by House Republicans, would cancel planned cuts in the growth rate of military appropriations, and increase the Pentagon's budget by $20 billion. He's right that the trajectory of our debt-to-income ratio is "catastrophic," yet is patently dishonest in describing what or who is driving us over a fiscal cliff.
I might add that the figures Ryan cites omit the costs of the Iraq, Afghan, and other wars, effectively disappearing $1.4 trillion in debt accrued since 9/11, as Callahan points out. Another dishonest sleight-of-hand from the man who recommends Atlas Shrugged to all his new staff hires. Perhaps Ryan has forgotten one of the key passages of that novel, where the hero describes what Rand considered to be the virtue of honesty:
"Honesty is the recognition of the fact that the unreal is unreal and can have no value, that neither love nor fame nor cash is a value if obtained by fraudthat an attempt to gain a value by deceiving the mind of others is an act of raising your victims to a position higher than reality, where you become a pawn of their blindness, a slave of their non-thinking and their evasions, while their intelligence, their rationality, their perceptiveness become the enemies you have to dread and flee."
Ryan had better start fleeing now, and get a head start, because it's going to be a very long campaign season.
Standing before the Alexander Hamilton Society and declaring that the US was "unfortunately," at the turn of the last century , "not yet ready to assume the burden of leadership" from our British big brothers smacks of treason when one considers Hamilton wanted a king, and, by 1790, had become a British agent. Ryan moans that our refusal to assume the reins of empire resulted in "40 years of Great Power rivalry and two World Wars" as if the Americans are to blame for the assassination of the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo, the spark that set that 40-year conflagration to burning! It was a wildfire that would never have touched American shores if not for the strenuous efforts of America's Hamiltonians to drag us into Europe's wars. Ayn Rand, Ryan's literary idol, understood this, which is why she opposed US entry into World War II, and bitterly denounced the Vietnam war.
Ah, but "the stakes are even higher today, says Ryan:
"Unlike Britain, which handed leadership to a power that shared its fundamental values, today's most dynamic and growing powers do not embrace the basic principles that should be at the core of the international system. A world without U.S. leadership will be a more chaotic place, a place where we have less influence, and a place where our citizens face more dangers and fewer opportunities. Take a moment and imagine a world led by China or by Russia."
It is doubtful the Russians or the Chinese have the either the desire or the capacity to "lead the world" a grandiose concept that seems to have originated with those who believe civilization would literally go to pieces without the beneficent direction of the right Anglo-Saxon aristocrats.
To Ryan, giving up this hereditary right to world hegemony amounts to accepting "decline," a choice which "would have consequences that I doubt many Americans would be comfortable with." Again, the facts burst Ryan's fanciful ideological balloon: as Ezra Klein points out, Republicans as well as Democrats, when presented with the actual budget breakdown, favor on average an 18 percent cut in military spending.
Heedless of either facts or figures, Ryan barrels on ahead, his inflated rhetoric ascending to the higher realms of moral philosophy and political theory:
"So we must lead. And a central element of maintaining American leadership is the promotion of our moral principles consistently and energetically without being unrealistic about what is possible for us to achieve. America is an idea."
Without even getting into what, exactly, this Grand Idea is all about, one has to ask: how can an entire nation possibly be reduced to a floating abstraction? Any nation with a history longer than fifteen minutes is already marked by the passage of time, during which the original intent or Idea is revised, if ever so slightly, in response to new circumstances. We have seen that in our own history, and yet Ryan is blind to this obvious fact because his view is essentially rationalistic and anti-historical.
A nation cannot be a mere idea for the simple reason that America, like all other countries, is a place; in our case, one with vast plains, fertile valleys, burning deserts, towering mountains, and two long coastlines fronting two oceans separating it from the ire and intrigues of foreign princes a place which, at the time of the Founding, was a sparsely populated and incredibly rich wilderness relatively free of European exploitation. It wasn't settled by ideas, but by people real live actual human beings, some of whom were the bearers of certain concepts which had a catalyzing effect on the course of American history. What's interesting is that Ryan fails to mention the primary idea that motivated the American colonists, which was opposition to foreign domination and the legitimacy of the British monarch. Even Hamilton, who wanted to place a crown on George Washington's head, embraced the essential spirit of the American Revolution, which if it can be called anything was certainly anti-imperialist. Indeed, it was the Founding Fathers who warned us not to go abroad "in search of monsters to destroy," and explicitly opposed the export of our revolution in the French style. Apparently the neo-Hamiltonians have surpassed even the treason of their idol.
From these soaring heights of philosophical expostulation, Ryan executes a rather bumpy landing into the lower planes of actual policy, but not before enunciating an axiom most puzzling:
"There are very good people who are uncomfortable with the idea that America is an 'exceptional' nation. But it happens that America was the first in the world to make the universal principle of human freedom into a "credo," a commitment to all mankind, and it has been our honor to be freedom's beacon for millions around the world."
Where in the Constitution or in the other founding documents of our country is it written that we have "a commitment to all mankind"? A commitment to do what? It only gets crazier as Ryan continues building the fantastical structure of his argument. The result is a monument to the intellectual emptiness of the America-is-an-idea bromide pushed by neoconservatives like that old bore Ben Wattenberg. "America's 'exceptionalism,'" avers Ryan, "is just this":
"While most nations at most times have claimed their own history or culture to be exclusive, America's foundations are not our own they belong equally to every person everywhere. The truth that all human beings are created equal in their natural rights is the most 'inclusive' social truth ever discovered as a foundation for a free society. 'All' means 'all'! You can't get more 'inclusive' than that!"
Or more contradictory. For if America is "exceptional," along with Americans, then how is it we're just like everybody else on earth? If our exceptionality doesn't belong exclusively to us, we cease being exceptional. Perhaps we can forgive Ryan this lapse into complete incoherence: after all, we don't expect our rulers to be philosopher kings, even if that's how they see themselves. All this abstract theorizing, which no one takes seriously, is meant to get him to a the point where he can argue the following:
"Now, if you believe these rights are universal human rights, then that clearly forms the basis of your views on foreign policy. It leads you to reject moral relativism. It causes you to recoil at the idea of persistent moral indifference toward any nation that stifles and denies liberty, no matter how friendly and accommodating its rulers are to American interests."
Such a dizzying leap of logic leaves the listener breathless, and somewhat disoriented: Ryan doesn't tell us why recognizing the universality of "human rights" ought "clearly" to form the "basis" of one's foreign policy views. A foreign policy is not a moral philosophy, which Ryan seems to belatedly recognize by citing the "tension between morality and reality." How he resolves that "tension" is particularly interesting.
Giving the example of the Saudis "with whom we share many interests" he notes the "sharp divide between the principles around which they have organized their state and the principles that guide the United States." His recommendation: " We should help our allies effect a transition that fulfills the aspirations of their people." He supposedly "hears voices within the Kingdom" calling for "reform," however "in Syria and Iran," he says, "we are witnessing regimes that have chosen the opposite path." In that case, we ought to give full-throated denunciations of "the jack-booted thugs of Syria and Iran."
Our principles, Ryan declares, must be "tempered by a healthy humility about the extent of our power to control events in other regions," but isn't it funny how "humility" always come into play when the petro-tyrants of the Kingdom are concerned, yet plays no role in our relations with Syria or Iran? This policy of selective humility is highly convenient for Ryan, because it enables him to align himself with whatever powerful lobby is pushing for war or a policy of complicity in repression.
For all his calls for "consistency" and "morality," Ryan is just another cynical self-aggrandizing opportunist, whose "principles" consist of appeasing the military industrial complex, the Israel lobby, and the neoconservatives, who have been " briefing" him on the Party Line. If he is the " intellectual leader" of the Republican party, then it is time for the GOP to declare intellectual bankruptcy.
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/08/12/the-marketing-of-paul-ryan/
Obama’s 'You Didn’t Build It' Canard
"As for the role of government, history proves that it has always been the mortal enemy of free voluntary exchange and the generation of prosperity through the free market. As Ludwig von Mises wrote in his 1956 book, The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality, "A nation is the more prosperous today the less it has tried to put obstacles in the way of the spirit of free enterprise and private initiative. The people of the United States are more prosperous than the inhabitants of all other countries [as of 1956] because their government embarked later than the governments in other parts of the world upon the policy of obstructing business.""
Obama's 'You Didn't Build It' Canard
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
Barack Obama recently proved once again that he is indeed a Proud Marxist (as Yuri Maltsev, former advisor to Mikhail Gorbachev, calls him) when he argued that successful American entrepreneurs "didn't build" their businesses on their own. Government bureaucrats were mostly responsible for their success, the Marxist in the White House asserted, citing government-run schools, roads, etc. Like all Marxists, Barack Obama is belligerently ignorant of economics and is in denial of much of economic reality.
No successful business person believes that he built his business completely on his own, without help from anyone. Obama's claim is a straw-man argument. Every business person collaborates day in and day out with suppliers, customers, employees, managers, accountants, marketers, bankers, investors, and many others. As Adam Smith wrote in his famous 1776 treatise, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1937 Random House edition, p.422):
Government spending at all levels accounts for some 40 percent of GDP, signifying that the American economy is at least 40 percent socialist. The socialist "public" school system is a disaster in every city with only a relatively few affluent suburban enclaves of success. As such, the American workforce has been dumbed down, year in and year out, to the economic detriment of everyone. The socialist "public" roads are responsible for more than 50,000 highway deaths each year, which is hardly a good record. The welfare state has destroyed the work incentive of millions and caused the break-up of untold numbers of families. (The basic mechanism here is welfare and child support payments that are generous enough to create millions of deadbeat dads who abandon their children without the social stigma of having left them in dire poverty).
Social Security reduces incentives to save for one's own retirement. Lowered savings rates lead to less capital investment and, consequently, slower economic growth. All other government spending programs enrich the parasitic political class while impoverishing the producer class. The long history of aggressive militarism by the U.S. government has always ratcheted up governmental powers at the expense of liberty and prosperity while enriching the military/industrial/congressional complex. The system of unlimited democracy that Americans now slave under can be defined as follows: Moochers and parasites hiring/electing professional looters to steal from producers.
The Fed has always generated boom-and-bust cycles in the economy, and then blamed the problems it created on the free enterprise system. After the Greenspan Fed created The Great Recession the current Fed "godfather," Ben Bernanke, went on television to arrogantly sneer at the notion that markets and the free enterprise system should or could be the way out of the depression, while arguing for the granting of vast new regulatory powers for the Fed.
Every business in America is now strangled by tens of thousands of pages of regulations in The Federal Register, not to mention reams of state and local government regulations. The pettiest, most selfish, and most ignorant local political hack has the ability to use government regulations to shut down billion dollar construction projects on a whim. A recent example of this is how a single member of the West Palm Beach, Florida city council caused a stoppage of the building of a major outlet shopping center in that city by demanding that the construction company that is building the shopping center hire more "local firms." It is a good bet that the city councilwoman in question has a relative who is a construction contractor. Such acts are nothing more than legalized extortion.
The more a business person must deal with regulations and regulators, the less time he has to devise ways to improve his products, cut his costs and prices, and create new products. Government regulation crowds out entrepreneurship, wealth creation, and job creation while imposing immeasurable costs (in time and money) on private businesses.
There are a few exceptions, but for most of the past 120 years government regulation of business has been a tool used by large corporations to stifle competition from their smaller competitors and to create barriers to competition from potential competitors. The very first federal regulatory agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission, founded in 1887, was used first by the railroad industry to cartelize the industry as a government-controlled price-fixing cartel. It then did the same thing for the trucking industry. The Civil Aeronautics Board was similarly "captured" by the airline industry, which enjoyed a government-enforced cartel price-fixing monopoly for half a century before it was deregulated in the late 1970s. The entire regime of "public utility regulation" has been one big government-run cartel or monopoly scheme since the late nineteenth century. This all goes under the rubric of the "capture theory of regulation" in the discipline of economics. (See Butler Shaffer, Restraint of Trade; and Gabriel Kolko, The Triumph of Conservatism).
Government also deals a death blow to the institution of capitalism with its massive bailouts of failing businesses as an additional form of corporate welfare. Capitalism is a system whereby profits and losses are private. Serving customers well leads to profits; failing to do so leads to losses or bankruptcy. Socializing the losses while keeping profits private encourages reckless risk taking and sloppy business management and causes "private" businesses to operate more like government bureaucracies.
In short, Barack Obama's ignorant "you didn't build it" remark did two things: First, it displayed remarkable economic ignorance; and second, it asserted exactly the opposite of the truth with regard to the role of government in the economy. In today's world American businesses that are successful in the marketplace have become so despite government intervention, not because of it.
http://lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo235.html
Obama's 'You Didn't Build It' Canard
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
Barack Obama recently proved once again that he is indeed a Proud Marxist (as Yuri Maltsev, former advisor to Mikhail Gorbachev, calls him) when he argued that successful American entrepreneurs "didn't build" their businesses on their own. Government bureaucrats were mostly responsible for their success, the Marxist in the White House asserted, citing government-run schools, roads, etc. Like all Marxists, Barack Obama is belligerently ignorant of economics and is in denial of much of economic reality.
No successful business person believes that he built his business completely on his own, without help from anyone. Obama's claim is a straw-man argument. Every business person collaborates day in and day out with suppliers, customers, employees, managers, accountants, marketers, bankers, investors, and many others. As Adam Smith wrote in his famous 1776 treatise, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1937 Random House edition, p.422):
- In civilized society [man] stands at all times in need of the cooperation and assistance of great multitudes, while his whole life is scarce sufficient to gain the friendship of a few persons . . . . Man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest . . . . Nobody but a beggar chuses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow citizens.
Government spending at all levels accounts for some 40 percent of GDP, signifying that the American economy is at least 40 percent socialist. The socialist "public" school system is a disaster in every city with only a relatively few affluent suburban enclaves of success. As such, the American workforce has been dumbed down, year in and year out, to the economic detriment of everyone. The socialist "public" roads are responsible for more than 50,000 highway deaths each year, which is hardly a good record. The welfare state has destroyed the work incentive of millions and caused the break-up of untold numbers of families. (The basic mechanism here is welfare and child support payments that are generous enough to create millions of deadbeat dads who abandon their children without the social stigma of having left them in dire poverty).
Social Security reduces incentives to save for one's own retirement. Lowered savings rates lead to less capital investment and, consequently, slower economic growth. All other government spending programs enrich the parasitic political class while impoverishing the producer class. The long history of aggressive militarism by the U.S. government has always ratcheted up governmental powers at the expense of liberty and prosperity while enriching the military/industrial/congressional complex. The system of unlimited democracy that Americans now slave under can be defined as follows: Moochers and parasites hiring/electing professional looters to steal from producers.
The Fed has always generated boom-and-bust cycles in the economy, and then blamed the problems it created on the free enterprise system. After the Greenspan Fed created The Great Recession the current Fed "godfather," Ben Bernanke, went on television to arrogantly sneer at the notion that markets and the free enterprise system should or could be the way out of the depression, while arguing for the granting of vast new regulatory powers for the Fed.
Every business in America is now strangled by tens of thousands of pages of regulations in The Federal Register, not to mention reams of state and local government regulations. The pettiest, most selfish, and most ignorant local political hack has the ability to use government regulations to shut down billion dollar construction projects on a whim. A recent example of this is how a single member of the West Palm Beach, Florida city council caused a stoppage of the building of a major outlet shopping center in that city by demanding that the construction company that is building the shopping center hire more "local firms." It is a good bet that the city councilwoman in question has a relative who is a construction contractor. Such acts are nothing more than legalized extortion.
The more a business person must deal with regulations and regulators, the less time he has to devise ways to improve his products, cut his costs and prices, and create new products. Government regulation crowds out entrepreneurship, wealth creation, and job creation while imposing immeasurable costs (in time and money) on private businesses.
There are a few exceptions, but for most of the past 120 years government regulation of business has been a tool used by large corporations to stifle competition from their smaller competitors and to create barriers to competition from potential competitors. The very first federal regulatory agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission, founded in 1887, was used first by the railroad industry to cartelize the industry as a government-controlled price-fixing cartel. It then did the same thing for the trucking industry. The Civil Aeronautics Board was similarly "captured" by the airline industry, which enjoyed a government-enforced cartel price-fixing monopoly for half a century before it was deregulated in the late 1970s. The entire regime of "public utility regulation" has been one big government-run cartel or monopoly scheme since the late nineteenth century. This all goes under the rubric of the "capture theory of regulation" in the discipline of economics. (See Butler Shaffer, Restraint of Trade; and Gabriel Kolko, The Triumph of Conservatism).
Government also deals a death blow to the institution of capitalism with its massive bailouts of failing businesses as an additional form of corporate welfare. Capitalism is a system whereby profits and losses are private. Serving customers well leads to profits; failing to do so leads to losses or bankruptcy. Socializing the losses while keeping profits private encourages reckless risk taking and sloppy business management and causes "private" businesses to operate more like government bureaucracies.
In short, Barack Obama's ignorant "you didn't build it" remark did two things: First, it displayed remarkable economic ignorance; and second, it asserted exactly the opposite of the truth with regard to the role of government in the economy. In today's world American businesses that are successful in the marketplace have become so despite government intervention, not because of it.
http://lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo235.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)