Posts Tagged ‘economics’

Beware of disdain for Bible truth

February 29, 2020

Open letter to an author at

I have written you before about mistaken perceptions about Christian Bible believers. Most self-described evangelicals are stupidly dupes of the state, what else is new? Jesus said long before you were born that the “children of this generation are wiser than the children of light”. They are some of them. Characters like Rothbard, Walter Block, Laurence Vance, Norman Horn, Chuck Baldwin, these are only representative of tens, probably hundreds of thousands, of Christians, maybe even millions, who are banned from conservative and liberal (government-permitted) media as non-persons, along with ex-homosexuals, abortion survivors, and you yourself. Yes, and opponents of “green socialism”.

First thing is to stop thinking they’re any more monochrome as atheists and agnostics, who run the entire gamut (just like Christians, and even evangelicals as such), from total totalitarians to die-hard complete anarchists (such as myself, Jesus Christ, and God himself). Although statistically atheists, agnostics and unbelievers tend MUCH more heavily toward the totalitarian side than Christians. As such outstanding atheists and agnostics as Rothbard and Walter Block and Herman Hoppe have acknowledged. (Although some superstitious pagan religions and most anti-Christian religious regimes in history show similar tendencies).

Second – The tendency to include little swipes like the out-of-context mention of Mike Pence, Adam and Eve, and Noah’s Ark shows a weakness toward intellectual hubris shared by many non-libertarian atheists and so-called skeptics.

REMINDER: Isaac Newton (who wrote more about Christianity and prophecy than science and math), Michael Faraday, Francis Bacon, Blaise Pascal, these also “believe[d] in Adam and Eve and Noah’s Ark”. So does Russell Humphrey, a scientist with a significant number of patents in very large-scale electro-magnetic mechanics, who accurately predicted the measurements of the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune (based on GENESIS ONE), confirmed by the Voyager II fly-by, to the shame of NASA scientists who were exponentially wrong, wrong, wrong. NASA learned then not to make a prediction about Mercury, but Humphrey’s was vindicated again.

Romanian creationist Nicolae C. Paulescu announced the discovery of insulin in 1921. The two Canadians who got the Nobel Prize for the discovery later apologized to Paulescu for misunderstanding his paper on the subject due to their faulty French. The Nobel Committee has never apologized for this slight or other blacklisting of creationists.

Creationist Raymond Damadian discovered the principles of MRI scanning.

Creationists ridiculed the idea of non-functional “vestigial organs” and “vestigial DNA” the very instant the terms were publicized.

Creationists from decades before the political academic elites theorized that variations within species in reaction to environmental conditions were managed by natural mechanisms within the genome itself. Not in a neo-Lamarckian sense, as Stephen Gould wrote about, but adaptations were built-in, part of the design. Note also that Stephen Gould said that gradual evolution as understood at that time, was not reflected at all in the fossil record. Instead of accepting that the fossils were a proof against Darwinism, he originated the “punctuated equilibrium” theory: spurts so fast they left no evidence. I call it the first “science” theory that is based on the lack of evidence for it. This is

The Bible anticipated DNA: “Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.” – Psalm 139:16

There is a description of the effect of an atomic bomb, even a “neutron bomb”, in Zecariah 14:12: ”
And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.”

This is the foreknowledge of prophecy.

Austrian economics is anticipated by Biblical economics, which adds some spiritual truths on top of it. Statism of ALL forms is condemned outright by scripture, notwithstanding the bloviations of both atheists and Christians against this fact based on narrow-colored glasses, and “we can do nothing against the truth but for the truth”.

John Nash (“A Beautiful Mind”): Influenced by Austrian economics

July 19, 2015

At the following link find a paper that finds a connection between Ludwig von Mises and John Nash, whose life was featured in the book and movie “A Beautiful Mind”. It wraps up with a quote from John Nash referring to his teacher from Austria, and distinguishing Austrian economics from  mainstream economic thought, and crediting its influence in his thinking. Nash received a Nobel Prize in Economics.

(Disclaimer: the Nobel Prize is not necessarily reliable as a measure of reliable thinking.)

Will robots put most people out of work?

July 21, 2014

You cannot possibly know that the only “niche” open will be “banditry” for buggy whip makers when buggy whip making is made obsolete by technology. Buggy whip makers found work at Ford Motor Company and in other places.

Some technology advances (robotics) scare many otherwise smart thinking people into thinking unemployment will rise, as in the referenced article.

For example, before technology T1 was adapted, say, n1 full time persons were required to produce product P1, and after T1 was adapted, n2 full time persons.

This does not happen in a vaccuum. n1 is greater than n2. The cost of n2 is less than n1.

But now n3 = n2 – n1 persons are now available to competitors, including new competitors, plus it is safe to assume that in most situations and generalizing here for the concept, there is now more competition for jobs that produce P1, which drives down the cost of P1.

With the consumer price of P1 lower than before, either (1) demand will usually go up for the product, or (2) consumers will buy other consumer goods.

So either (1) we must adjust n3 in the real world (job losses) upward, meaning there are fewer jobs lost due to technology T1, or (2) there is more “purchasing power” available for other products P2, P3, P4, etc., or (3) there is more leisure time for the producers, or (4) most probably, all of the above. Also, technology T1 may also require new jobs in both its production and/or consumption.

The changes that came with computing advances should kill this idea about robots leaving great masses of people unemployed. In the 1930s the biggest companies had multiple floors of accounting specialists and clerks using calculators all day to do the accounting for the company. In the late 1940s or early 1950s the CEO of IBM was still saying only three or four organizations in the world would ever need a computer. Microsoft CEO Bill Gates once said that people would never find much use for the Internet.

And yet we did not have great masses of former accountants and clerks on the street when computers automated so much of the accounting process. It rather enabled all kinds of new specializations in all kinds of industries, created an entire new information industry for both business and consumers, and made life easier in general. For the unskilled and uneducated included. The poorest barrios in one of the still poorest countries of Latin America have smart phones in at least one home every block.

The same will hold with robotics. We cannot have any idea how it will sort out. If 3-D technology is not crimped with stupid government interference, there will be a lot more people able to do some home-based manufacturing services, just for an example. IF.

But government interfering with the readjustment does not help, and that includes government-directed retraining. Let the market pull the resources to where the new demand will go, and let private investors take the risk instead of wasting economic resources for government middlemen and idlers. Those resources belong at private risk, no cost to you.


Who causes poverty?

June 28, 2014

Latinos cause poverty? Depends on which Latinos or Latin Americans, same as North Americans. Richest man in the world is Carlos Sims. But they have had their own versions of left-fascists, and residual poverty leaving them helpless.

The U.S. has enjoyed a history of traditional cultural importance of individual rights and free market principles and the robber barons are never capable of wreaking the havoc that governments do, and have historically done, every time and every place.
Foreign aid given to these governments, like Dambisa Moyo wrote, corrupts them, engenders obeisance to the oligarch interests here that use money they stole from us. Without the political payoffs of government to government, the politicians and political powers of those countries would have incentive to let their own economies generate a better tax base.
Maybe that’s what motivates Honduras with their new economic zones. After the United States joined the world in condemning Honduras for defending themselves against another socialist Cuban-Chavista tyrant, including the US Ambassador promoting dictator Zelaya’s plans and even helping plan the takeover, they figured they should get ready to take care of themselves.
After all, even the Chinese finally figured out there was no way to command the masses into prosperity.


Coulter, Cubans, Immigration, Wages, Improving the Economy

March 1, 2014

Ann Coulter has a solution for raising wages to $14.00 an hour:

Ann Coulter is often right, very right, especially when she talks about the effect of what she calls “liberal” policies, what I call “left-fascist” dictates. (When government enacts a law, that is a “dictate”, because you obey “or else!”). Her writing is entertaining too.

But she is also wrong sometimes. Conservatives are following the socialist plutocrat misdirection tricks when they beat the drums of immigration too loud.

It may be that “all other things being equal”, more immigration for a time may bring down wages, especially if the immigration is unskilled and doesn’t bring investment wealth along with it.

But if they bring wealth-creating aptitude, it doesn’t matter if they come into the country completely broke. The Cubans infused Miami, Florida in 1959 and then 1960s with more than just a major population boost. That first wave of Cubans had owned ranches, businesses, sugar cane plantations, they had been the organizers and investors in Cuba. They knew how to build things up.

They are a very big net gain for the economy, in proportion to their numbers. At first these penniless immigrants may have displaced an unskilled worker here and there, but their net effect was to increase production.

But take the unskilled workers. If you really and truly stop immigration and so restrict the labor supply by mandate to keep up the demand and pay for yourself, there some negative effects.

One, if you’re a computer programmer for example, this makes offshoring more attractive than it was before.

Two, on a more macro scale, restricting the labor supply (skilled or unskilled both) raises the production cost for the business. The cost going up increases pressure to raise the prices on the production of goods and services. That cost is borne by the consumer, eventually.

Consider that the consumer is everybody everywhere all the time.

So, that may seem it gives you an advantage. But let’s say a big number of people think the same way. Every other profession in industry does the same thing. But wait, with information technology, that’s all industries. Everything you buy costs more, because you’re financing the other guys who get the same benefits from restricting the supply of your skill.

But the middleman gets his cut, and he does not ask politely. The middleman is the tax man who takes his cut like it or not, to finance enforcement. You don’t usually make the connection between the higher cost of things and cutting down immigration numbers, or the extortion effect of enforcement, but those connections are there.

It’s the same principle with the minimum wage demands by unions.

It’s true that some “Democrat Party” strategist devil came up with this diabolical plot to do this big push for a minimum wage. They desperately want to change the subject away from Obamacare. Their polls and their focus groups tell them that this favors them.

But the Republican politicians are somewhere between stupid and opportunistic on this and other issues. The minimum wage is a fantastic opportunity to educate the public. But they use the stupidest arguments to oppose it.

The stupid argument is that it’s bad for the economy, it creates unemployment. This is true, and it should be part of it, but saying companies have to fire people is maybe not the best approach for convincing new numbers. They should emphasize at every turn that poor young whites and blacks should have a way to make at least a “training” wage. The marginally productive, like special needs youth, they should have an opportunity to feel productive.

Rand Paul is doing some of this. He is definitely not his father, I disagree sharply with some of his approaches, but that’s what he’s doing. He went to Detroit to set up shop in an urban area with the blight caused by decades of non-stop socialistic policies.


Economics, efficient war machines are bad things, and the non-aggression principle

January 12, 2014

A thank-you to “uldissprogis”, who provides some cogent and articulate points to ponder. He seems to be almost as wordy as me when he’s emotionally engaged with a topic, as I am. He has given us a lot to answer.

I understand this passion to help change the world, make it better, help the poor. Even though my father’s weekly sermons, full of all the compassion for the helpless and the needy that Jesus Christ showed in his life, ministry, death and resurrection, must have had something to do with this drive (in my case) to help others, I learned to apply this to Communist thinking. Spreading the wealth.
The following post is context for the article below:

Eventually though I learned that not everything we are told is believable, whether it be at schools, colleges, from media, and from the pulpits of the land, or from the political class.

I’ll just answer a few concerns.

He was basically in favor of uncontrolled capitalism in private and business lives. I disagree with him [Ludwig von Mises] and believe that the national government has a role to play in private charity.

Point one for this: There is a common misunderstanding about the two approaches to two different spheres of action that we know of as “Austrian economics” and “libertarians”.

Austrian economics is the study of economics. Some who don’t understand it call it “not rational”, whereas its foremost figures study it very rationally, intellectually, and most of all, logically. “Austrian economics” is the study of how economics actually works in the real world. von Mises is one of the best known of these scholars.

“Libertarianism” is the political philosophy most associated with Austrian economics. But its basis and philosophy is different, although I’ve noticed there is tremendous overlap among the followers of each.

The summary definition of libertarian thinking is the “non-aggression principle”. That’s an ethical principle, or moral principle, not a scholarly principle. It’s a guiding principle for human action, whereas Austrian economics is the study of it.

On the other issue, if the “national government” has a role in any “charity”, then by definition it is not a “private charity”, and that means the “hybrid” charities too, for example, the Bush-era government money for “faith-based programs”, which are now the Obama-era “faith-based programs”.

Payoffs from government to do “charity” work tend to subtly influence the “charity” to play nice with government, making them de facto advocates of those who continue and expand them, and against those who would stop them.

It’s interesting that after reading as much of von Mises you did, that you would still hold the idea that somehow government can solve the problems of the poor. I admit, depending on which of his writing you read, it is scholarly and it is a slow-walk.

The principles are clear enough, though, if one takes the time to think.

In my years as a missionary, in which we distributed food directly to the poor in the poorest barrios south of the border, visited with people, distributed clothing, ministered to people in hospitals, prisons, orphanages, I can guarantee you that each of our young 1970s era missionaries did much more good for many more people than the average federally funded social service worker.

Some of them had been heroin junkies themselves, healed going “cold turkey” after accepting Christ right on the beach and joining the work then and there. Another had been a diamond smuggler, another was a drug dealer who had cops on the payroll to keep his corner spot safe for his trade.

All government can do is to steal the resources from somebody’s fruits of his labor or investment to give it to someone else, but of course making sure the tax man (the one that tells you how much to pay, takes his cut. Got to have the enforcers on the take, too, after all.

The best results for the poor abound when the force of a gun (of the law) is removed from the equation. When each person can enjoy the fruits of his labor and invest it as he wishes, then everyone gets a win-win. That way each person gets more value for what he gets than what he gives, because otherwise he wouldn’t deal.

You mention the Internet. Up to now, the USG (government) has let it (kind of) roam free. So far anyway. That’s why we get the convenience of it.

Most monopolies are government-enforced. The AT&T phone monopoly lasted several decades, by federal mandate (dictate). The price was subsidies for local calling.

Phones dialed over land lines. Finally rivals were allowed to sell competing phones.

Then came cellular phones. The market was much more free in the US for cell phones, and we got an explosion of companies, distributors and innovation competing in the marketplace for your dollar, and the result is.. drumroll, please…

Now, you have a proliferation of cell phones in the poorest countries, driven there by the state-dictated phone monopolies over land lines.

And you mention the minimum wage. The dictator Manuel Zelaya ordered a doubling of the minimum wage in Honduras in his 2005-2009 reign, and 150,000 –that’s one hundred fifty thousand of the poorest in that country– lost their jobs overnight. Because the Mom and Pop stores could not afford to pay it as they were barely afloat themselves.

Labor unions push the minimum wage as a recruiting tool and to keep the labor market small. Actually, it’s not so much the unions as the union bosses lining their coffers.

Technological advances are good, and will help all people as long as the government keeps out. (Or gets out at least first).

Before there was government, there was trade.

Then came chiefs controlling their people, then came raids on other tribes and either looting or demands for tribute (another form of looting). Then came empires, built on the force of their own hegemony enforced at the point of a sword. Bread and circuses for the Romans, crumbs and gladiator service and other tribute for the conquered.

As for moral teaching, if you supposedly “realize” (with some reason) that the “new world will be controlled by international banks, international businesses etc. down to the control exercised by the individual who will have little chance of challenging the big corrupt inefficient boys”, then understand that the forced teaching in state-run schools of any moral code at all, whether it’s my Bible-based one or your “secular” one, in reality is going to work against you.

It’s something I realized while I was still a Communist, and it turned me at that time into a “syndicalist-anarchist”. Dictators that rule in a dictatorship, no matter who they are, are not going to give up power “just like that” like a finger snap. I realized at that time: If you can’t trust people to govern themselves, how can you ever trust them to govern somebody else? Forget it. Criminals that do their work by force don’t “live by the rules”, and neither will governments that rule by force “live by the rules”.

When the Israelites finally demanded a government of Samuel the prophet, he warned them. God told Samuel they had rejected God, not Samuel, because now they wanted to be ruled by a man, a king, instead of being governed by the rules laid down for them by God. God had Samuel warn them: A king will put unbearable burdens of taxation on you, he will take your sons to war, and generally ride roughshod over your lives.

That’s exactly what they got. Solomon’s tax burdens were the grievance that split the kingdom and led the northern tribes to idolatry and ruin and captivity, and almost all the kings were abusive.

You probably are already familiar with it, but here’s a thinking man’s source on climate science and a place to find what real climate scientists are saying about it:

Note that biodiversity also provides an example of what I’m saying on government and laws and good intentions.

Never mind all the evidence that it’s a sham cause invented to divert attention from the real poverty-making problems like crony capitalism and the marriage of the biggest corporations (i.e., of the U. S. Chamber of Commerce with left-fascism, in their multimillionaire tirade against “tea party” candidates. They will back “pro-business” candidates they say, by which they mean supporters of crony capitalism.

Why are the foundations established by the very richest tycoons always supporting socialist causes, at the same time they support political forces that produce propaganda in favor of more “social justice” and command-and-control government?

In the first half of the 20th century, wood ducks were in danger of extinction in the United States. Long before environmentally oriented laws.

Farmers across the country heard about it and started setting up crooks in the rivers and lakes on their land and leaving them be to attract the ducks and make them welcome. The population exploded and now they are prolific, and have been for decades.

Today, however, a farmer that has no such ducks on his land would be stupid to do such a thing, because if an “endangered” species makes a home on his land then it becomes de facto property under the control of the same government that does everything it can to strengthen Big Agriculture in its struggle against more efficient single family farms, who are struggling against Big Brother dictates like this one.

Farmers in California had to watch their houses burn in wildfires, because they were prohibited from preparing their property to protect the houses, because it would make like more difficult for one particular wild breed of a kind of rat. How loco can this get? You can’t make this stuff up!

And the guy in Louisiana who created a watering pond for his animals, then filled it in when he didn’t need it anymore and was fined thousands of dollars for destroying a watershed. Crazier and crazier.

One more thing. Too many people have had the new rulers’ indoctrination in state-run centers, on history. They left out a lot.

For example. St. Patrick’s effective crusade against slavery than began the cultural shift that made it taboo until later, and something the slavers in more recent centuries had to keep out of sight of Europe.

Patrick’s legacy of literacy in Ireland spawned a voracious literary appetite in Ireland that found its cultural way back the British side of the water and saved the classic literature of Greece and Rome away from the book-hating hordes ransacking the continent.

The practice of Christians during the earliest days led to the saving of many infants from the practice of infanticide of those days. Some of them even waited under bridges where babies were thrown and they would catch them or rescue them, and mothers began leaving them on the doorsteps of a couple they knew were Christians.

Christian monks shamed the Roman public into slinking away from gladiator battles, in at least one documented instance one gave his life, Telemachus.

Again, an inefficient process with libertarian freedom is way much better than an efficient war machine. Technology can be used for evil or for good, although some technologies lend themselves more to one than the other. Cars are generally dangerous, computers and electronic communications are generally benign and beneficial in their applications.

What’s wrong with respecting the non-aggression principle as the working rule for everyone? Nobody is compelled to do anything by force or the threat of force or by fraud (which is a force-by-stealth). Let them do business as they will within that principle.

This is not even as strong an ethic as the Golden Rule.


What is really behind the Chamber of Commerce hate for the “Tea Party” people, Really?

January 11, 2014

Conservatives question US Chamber’s plan to spend millions to defeat Tea Party style candidates in 2014 | Fox News:

The article says that it’s their reaction to the so-called “tea party” shutdown of government over Obamacare last year (2013).

Really? Or is it –just maybe– because the “Tea Party” identifying Congressmen are hanging out shingles on their doors that say “No Sale”?

Sure, a few really big corporations lost some government money during that shutdown. Mr. Unofficial Fabian Socialist of the left-fascist faction made sure of that, as anyone who paid attention to the details knows.

But then they kept on going.

Maybe it’s the tea-party’s major issue that has them scared: That fedgov has gotten way too big, and handles way too much money.

To me, it was a fascinating turn of events. I never thought the Chamber of Commerce, that claims to be the voice of business and –so we thought– free enterprise, would be so blatant and public about advocating against freedom of enterprise and relief for the “Taxed Enough Already”. But there they go, they are.

I thought they might grumble silently, because the businesses that have survived the Fed, the income tax, regulation, the New Deal, the War on Poverty, the wars in Europe, the welfare-warfare state, and the lead-up to the rollout of the Unaffordable Sick Act (aka Obamacare; or )

Of course it’s the small businesses that cannot afford the deep-pocket lobbyists who really are sick and tired of fedgov burdens and chains on their economic freedoms. The last thing they want to do is to kill their business by endangering their customers. But government-protected businesses have to be big, for the kind of results demanded and for the influence they get.

So, there you go. America’s biggest corporations have declared themselves full supporters of left-fascist government. I warned conservatives in the Bush years that the totalitarian surveillance state would be turned on them with a changing to the Hustler-in-Chief. I warned the “liberals” and the “Democrats” that there was no difference.

Sure, Obama would accelerate Bush’s push to expand the welfare state, but then he would also continue and expand the warfare state. This is a big-business unspoken understanding, but know this: the biggest among them would rather lose the medical industry to Obama’s”care” than to give up their now full-blown partnership with fedgov’s force-enforced domination of the economy.

Obama’s cabinet picks, and especially his “czars” (short for little Caesars) demonstrated this clearly. He had people from Wall Street, Big Bankers including Goldman Sachs, Big Industry, leftists from Academia, including open Communists, the environmentally religious, all thrown into the same mix and working together.

Really big business marries Big Brother, a trade made in hell. Big Business sells its wares to fedgov, and fedgov operatives sell favors to Big Business.

Yep. Congress has about a 9% approval rate and a general 90-95 percent re-election rate, where it jumped to after passage of the McCain Feingold Incumbent Protection-Racket Campaign Finance Reform. Before that act it was already hard enough to unseat one of this most despised political club in the country at an 80 percent re-election rate.

GALATIANS 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

9 And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.

// <!–[CDATA[
function DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw”); if(null != object) { object.DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url);} };
function Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw”); if(null != object) object.Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url); };
function NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw”); if(null != object) object.NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url); }
function Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw”); if(null != object) object.Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url); };

// ]]>


Taxes, theft, and socialism

September 17, 2012



The Road to Serfdom

The Road to Serfdom (Photo credit: Wikipedia)



“Can these be the same people who claim that paying tax is akin to forced labour and theft? Surely not!”

You enter into agreements to earn your income, and many poor have done hard labor to earn income to put into savings until they have enough to invest higher. Literally thousands of Cubans arrived in the U.S. during 1959 and the 1960s literally penniless. Literally.

Claiming you’re not forced to engage in taxable agreements is now dead, as the thieving philosophy underlying the income tax has been exposed by John Roberts himself, a “rightist” exposed as “leftist” and wealth confiscator.

Claiming you can always leave the country is an argument from ignorance, because the U.S. makes claims on expatriate that reaches farther than almost all of them.

That’s why taxes are theft. Try leaving without paying your fiefdom share of the crop to the “nobles” who expect it in return for all the blessings of government they provide.

Hence the title of Hayek‘s book “Socialism: The Road to Serfdom“.




Establishment economists do what they’re paid to do, denounce gold standard

January 21, 2012

“rawstory” delivered up a story from AFP about a “panel” of 40 economists, “bipartisan” they said and repeated (oh yeah?), that denounced the idea of returning to a gold standard. They used the word “bipartisan” while they also mentioned that the other candidates are feebly echoing Ron Paul‘s support for a gold standard:

AFP was pathetically backwards wrong on the Honduras situation in 2009, so I’m not surprised they repeat this globalist neo-conservative disdain for using money of genuine intrinsic independent value.

And “bipartisan” my rear end! as the expression says it. How stupid do you guys think we are? Go back to your Money 101 class, even Keynes bow to “full faith and credit of” clause, it’s a Keynesian trade secret.

What people need is a medium that is immune to the political whims of bankers like the ones that own the Federal Reserve, like gold. They can’t manipulate its worth, which these Master Manipulators think is a bad thing.

When the Fed increases the money supply, it’s the big banks that get the big dollars first, and that means they and their best and biggest clients the biggest corporations can use it to multiply their own record profits. Now with more money floating around prices go up because they chase after the same production of goods and services, ==> and that is the ROBBERY BY STEALTH that is fiat currency.

These are “experts” blessed by the political rulers to give their religious blessing. It’s an “opiate for the masses” so the blind can lead the blind into the ditch.

Ron Paul is right. Golden Rule Government is the best for all of us, the poor most of all.


Glenn Beck is losing credibility, Ron Paul knows his subject

January 20, 2012
Ron Paul Revolution design
Ron Paul at a rally in the Nashville War Memor...

Image via Wikipedia

Ron Paul presidential campaign, 1988

Image via Wikipedia

Ron Paul's blimp
Image via Wikipedia

This does not pass the smell test:

This sounds like the media playbook that pretended it was a Ron Paul supporter that said “Let him die!” when a moderator asked him about somebody without insurance that died of cancer.

I told my brother I thought it was most likely somebody who did not like Ron Paul yelling that.

And that was the Ron Paul who treated such cases in his private practice free of charge when they could not pay, and worked for a while at a Catholic hospital that treated for free many patients who could not pay.

Nowadays, the people who were generally treated for free before, now get Medicare and Medicaid, so the demagogues can now say there’s all these people who depend on it. Blah blah. How much wealth would be freed up if you eliminated the zillion-dollar federal “health care” bureaucracy?

Now Glenn Beck wants to discredit Ron Paul by saying this crap? And why is HE the ONLY one supposedly getting all these “death threats”?

I’ll bet you, there are so many trillions of corrupt dollars at stake for some interests it would surprise me greatly if it is Ron Paul who was not getting death threats!

So big deal, Glenn Beck! And go have your logic examined for reality!

The thing you say is crazy about Ron Paul’s perspective on the Middle East is the same thing the CIA experts on the subject are saying, that American meddling has a blowback principle.

What, you think American bases on Saudi Arabian soil doesn’t irk some Saudis and Arabs? How about an Arab whose grandfather or cousin  was killed in Deir Yassin? You don’t think American support for Israel would not bother Arabs?

We Americans complain about United Nations authorities telling us what to do here.

And why not try the same thing that worked for so long in American foreign policy, the Founding Fathers version, be friends with all with entangling alliances with none. How about that? Speak softly but carry a big national defense stick?

Like the respected international security analysis company Stratfor said when we went into Afghanistan, they predicted this too. They said if the USA goes in and overthrows the Taliban and chases al Qaeda into the nooks and crannies and then gets out and leaves it to the Afghans, they would be able to declare a victory and destroy their credibility, as in “Don’t tread on me”, and don’t mess with this tiger.

But instead, they made al Qaeda into this big evil monster that was going to overthrow the United States of America and take us over if we didn’t invade Afghanistan and Iraq and suspend the Fourth and Fifth Amendments with the Patriot Act and put out yellow and red threat alerts and check our genitals at the airports.

Give me a break! It would be a comedian’s laugh line if it weren’t such a real threat to us!

Our biggest threat right now to our freedoms is our own federal government and a looming unconstitutional police state that has full arbitrary confiscatory powers over all our production, it’s not those Arabs, jihad or no!

Rather than paying to have troops in 150 countries around the world in 900 bases with money we do not have, better to have them spend their money here and strengthen national defense here at home, protect our own borders instead of Afghanistan’s, use the savings from cutting out useless and burdensome federal bureaucracies to pay for the nuclear submarines (which Ron Paul strongly supports).

And that way they will have to take notice: You attack us here, or you attack our ships carrying freight or passengers, we will not hesitate to defend ourselves…

And hey Glenn Beck! Since when does a Mormon oppose the Golden Rule?