Marc Faber Blasts “A Corrupt System That Rewards Stupidity”

October 12, 2013

Pay attention low information voters …

Rewarding Stupidity … That is the Obama Alinsky way … Marc Faber Blasts “A Corrupt System That Rewards Stupidity”

And the clapping seals rejoice. Obamacare’s Negative Impact on Young People Too young to know how screwed you are.


Who Shut Down The Government

October 4, 2013

Thomas Sowell has a very good piece up at Townhall ..::: Who Shut Down the Government?

Irecomend reading it all … It’s well worth the time spent.


“Get Off the ‘Big Government Plantation’ Run to see Runaway Slave!” — Rep. Allen West

February 26, 2013

Something I will never understand … why Blacks stick with the government plantation?

As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in the summer of 1963, he delivered one of the most powerful speeches in our nation’s history. Known for its famous line, “I have a dream,” Dr. King concluded his speech with these words:

“And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, ‘Free at last, free at last! Thank God Almighty, we’re free at last!'”

Now, nearly a half-century later, has his dream become reality? Have we allowed freedom to truly ring? Or has that longed-for freedom somehow become even more elusive?

In RUNAWAY SLAVE, an intriguing new documentary that opens in theaters this summer, Rev. C.L. Bryant journeys across America to find answers. A one-time NAACP local chapter president, Rev. Bryant discovers that by buying into the entitlement mindset of “progressives,” the black community has traded one form of tyranny for another.

Using leading black conservatives as “conductors,” Rev. Bryant believes it is time for a new Underground Railroad to help liberate all Americans from the Government plantation that has left the black community dealing with a new form of slavery: entitlements.

“Why are we still thinking we are not free at last? What ideas are keeping us down?” Rev. Bryant asks. “For too long, we have been depending on other people for our success. We have to pursue our happiness; our happiness is not provided to us. If we are relying on someone else for our wellbeing, that in itself is a form of slavery.”

From our nation’s capital and freedom’s birthplace, to the dens of slavery and Jim Crow, to wherever a light for liberty is shining, this runaway slave looks to bring hope to the oppressed. Among the leaders he talks with along the way are Dr. King’s niece, Dr. Alveda King; former presidential candidate Herman Cain; Congressman Allen West; economist and author Dr. Thomas Sowell; talk-show host and author Glenn Beck; the late Andrew Breitbart. We also meet a new generation of young freedom fighters who are on the front lines of change!

Rev. Bryant’s conclusion? It’s time to run. “Run away from economic slavery. Run toward the blessings of liberty. Let us remain strong in this fight. Run away from socialism; run away from progressivism. And if you get tired, America … run harder!”

This summer, celebrate your freedom by running as fast and as hard as you can to see RUNAWAY SLAVE in theaters.

Make No Mistake About It, The Union Killed Hostess

November 23, 2012

Whatever else happens between Hostess and the union beyond this point, let’s be clear that it was the union (and more specifically the absurd work rules and compensation packages the union foisted upon Hostess) that brought the company to this point.

As Thomas Sowell notes, the union killed the goose that laid the golden eggs.

Many people think of labor unions as organizations to benefit workers, and think of employers who are opposed to unions as just people who don’t want to pay their employees more money. But some employers have made it a point to pay their employees more than the union wages, just to keep them from joining a union.

Why would they do that, if it is just a question of not wanting to pay union wages? The Twinkies bankruptcy is a classic example of costs created by labor unions that are not confined to paychecks.

The work rules imposed in union contracts required the company that makes Twinkies, which also makes Wonder Bread, to deliver these two products to stores in separate trucks. Moreover, truck drivers were not allowed to load either of these products into their trucks. And the people who did load Twinkies into trucks were not allowed to load Wonder Bread, and vice versa.

All of this was obviously intended to create more jobs for the unions’ members. But the needless additional costs that these make-work rules created ended up driving the company into bankruptcy, which can cost 18,500 jobs. The union is killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

Unions are, and should be, a part of our labor markets. Workers have every right to form their associations and negotiate contracts through those associations for their labor. The problem is that, under American law, businesses are all but locked into a suicide pact with the unions. Whereas in every other sort of contractual transaction, if one part or the other is dissatisfied they can walk away at the end of the contract. But not so with labor. Under American law, employees can get rid of a union through a petition and vote process regulated by the National Labor Relations Board. But if an employer no longer wants to sign contracts with a union their only choice is to lock the union out indefinitely, something that is subject to the scrutiny of the NLRB and potentially the courts. And even if the lockout withstands that scrutiny, it never really ends.

The reason why companies like Hostess allow themselves to be entrapped in such absurd labor contracts is because often, in the short term, those contracts are less hassle than being rid of the union itself.

That needs to end. Employers must have the same right to walk away from a union as employees have.

Sowell: 2016 – A Powerful Movie

August 22, 2012

You probably know Thomas Sowell … He has some words about the Dinesh D’Souza’s movie, Obama 2016.

Thomas Sowell writes:

Years, and sometimes decades, pass between my visits to movie theaters. But I drove 30 miles to see the movie “2016,” based on Dinesh D’Souza’s best-selling book, “The Roots of Obama’s Rage.” Where I live is so politically correct that such a movie would not even be mentioned, much less shown.Every seat in the theater was filled, even though there had been an earlier showing that day, and more showings were scheduled for the rest of the afternoon and evening. I had to sit on a staircase in the balcony, but it was worth it.

The audience was riveted. You could barely hear a sound from them, or detect a movement, and certainly not smell popcorn. Yet the movie had no bombast, no violence, no sex and no spectacular visual effects.

The documentary itself was fascinating, as Dinesh D’Souza presented the story of Barack Obama’s life and view of the world, in a very conversational sort of way, illustrating it with visits to people and places around the world that played a role in the way Obama’s ideas and beliefs evolved.

Read the rest of this entry »

Sowell Food

June 22, 2010

Thomas Sowell has this excellent column from IDB:

When Adolf Hitler was building up the Nazi movement in the 1920s, leading up to his taking power in the 1930s, he deliberately sought to activate people who did not normally pay much attention to politics.

Such people were a valuable addition to his political base, since they were particularly susceptible to Hitler’s rhetoric and had far less basis for questioning his assumptions or his conclusions.

“Useful idiots” was the term supposedly coined by V.I. Lenin to describe similarly unthinking supporters of his dictatorship in the Soviet Union.

Put differently, a democracy needs informed citizens if it is to thrive, or ultimately even survive.

In our times, American democracy is being dismantled, piece by piece, before our very eyes by the current administration in Washington, and few people seem to be concerned about it.

The president’s poll numbers are going down because increasing numbers of people disagree with particular policies of his, but the damage being done to the fundamental structure of this nation goes far beyond particular counterproductive policies.

Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere.

And yet that is precisely what is happening with a $20 billion fund to be provided by BP to compensate people harmed by their oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Many among the public and in the media may think that the issue is simply whether BP’s oil spill has damaged many people, who ought to be compensated.

But our government is supposed to be “a government of laws and not of men.”

If our laws and our institutions determine that BP ought to pay $20 billion — or $50 billion or $100 billion — then so be it.

But the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without “due process of law.”

Technically, it has not been confiscated by Barack Obama, but that is a distinction without a difference.

With vastly expanded powers of government available at the discretion of politicians and bureaucrats, private individuals and organizations can be forced into accepting the imposition of powers that were never granted to the government by the Constitution.

If you believe that the end justifies the means, then you don’t believe in constitutional government.

Thomas Sowell: Today’s ‘useful idiots’ would make Stalin proud

March 5, 2010

Pundit Eleanor Clift a Prime Example

Lenin is supposed to have referred to blind defenders and apologists for the Soviet Union in the Western democracies as “useful idiots.” Yet even Lenin might have been surprised at how far these useful idiots would carry their partisanship in later years including our own times.

Stalin’s man-made famine in the Soviet Union during the 1930% killed more millions of people than Hitler killed in the Holocaust and Mao’s man-made famine in China killed more millions than died in the USSR. Yet we not only hear little or nothing about either of these staggering catastrophes in the Communist world today, but also very little was said about them in the Western democracies while they were going on. Indeed, many useful idiots denied that there were famines in the Soviet Union or in Communist China.

The most famous of these was the New York Times’ Moscow correspondent, Walter Duranty, who won a Pulitzer prize for telling people what they wanted to hear, rather than what was actually happening. Duranty assured his readers that “there is no famine or actual starvation, nor is there likely to be.” Moreover, he blamed reports to the contrary on “rumor factories” with anti-Soviet bias.

It was decades later before the first serious scholarly study of that famine was written, by Robert Conquest of the Hoover Institution, always identified in politically correct circles as “right-wing.” Yet when the Soviets’ own statistics on the deaths during the famine were finally released, under Mikhail Gorbachev, they showed that the actual deaths exceeded even the millions estimated by Dr. Conquest.

Official statistics on the famine deaths in China under Mao have never been released, but knowledgeable estimates run upwards of 20 million people. Yet, even here, there were the same bland denials by sympathizers and fellow travellers in the West as during the earlier Soviet famine. One celebrated “expert” on China wrote: “I saw no starving people in China, nothing that looked like old-time famines.” Horrifying as the preCommunist famines were, they never killed as many people as Mao’s famine did.

Today, even after the evidence of massive man-made famines in the Communist world, after Solzhenitsyn’s revelations about the gulags and after the horrors of the killing fields of Cambodia, the useful idiots continue to deny or downplay staggering human tragedies under Communist dictatorships. Or else they engage in moral equivalence, as Newsweek editor and TV pundit Eleanor Clift did during the Elian Gonzalez controversy, when she said: “To be a poor child in Cuba may in many instances be better than being a poor child in Miami and I’m not going to condemn their lifestyle so gratuitously.”

Apparently totalitarian dictatorship is just a lifestyle, like wearing sandals and beads and using herbal medicine. It apparently has not occurred to Eleanor Clift to ask why poor people in Miami do not put themselves and their children on flimsy boats, in a desperate effort to reach Cuba.

Elian Gonzalez and his mother were only the latest of millions of people to flee Communist dictatorships at the risk of their lives. Some were shot trying to get past the Berlin wall, and hundreds of thousands of “boat people” were drowned trying to escape a Communist Vietnam that many useful idiots were celebrating from inside free democracies. Many who escaped from the Soviet Union to the West during the Second World War were sent back by American authorities, except for those who committed suicide rather than go back.

Useful Idiots Of the Future

Yet none of this has really registered on a very large segment of the intelligentsia in the West. Nor are Western capitalists immune to the same blindness. The owner of the Baltimore Orioles announced that he would not hire baseball players who defect from Cuba, because this would be an “insult” to Castro. TV magnate Ted Turner has sponsored a TV mini-series on the Cold War that has often taken the moral equivalence line.

Turner’s instructions to the historian who put this series together was that he wanted no “triumphalism,” meaning apparently no depiction of the triumph of democracy over Communism. Various scholars who have specialized in the study of Communist countries have criticized the distortions in this miniseries in a recently published book titled CNN’s Cold War Documentary: Issues and Controversy, edited by Arnold Beichman.

%d bloggers like this: