I read this over on American Thinker, apparently, Krugman, the Nobel Prize winning economist and staunch advocate Keynesian economic incursions by government, has declared that the Austrian School of Economic Theory, has been proved wrong by the lack of price inflation in our economy after massive ‘stimulus’ by the Fed. I made the following comment and thought I’d post it here…

Keynesianism is to the politician, as the prescription writing doctor is to drug addicted celebrity. Keynes gives the politician the answer that they most want to hear – spend more! When things don’t turn out as Keynes predicts, as has always been the case, the politicians can then point to inflated, egotistical wind bags such as Krugman, and say ” we listened to the greatest economic minds in the world, we have no idea why it didn’t work, but it’s probably George Bush’s fault!”.

I expect Krugman to win some Presidential Medal of Freedom, or another Nobel Prize for these latest observations- anything to further pump up his ego and encourage him to continue to laud the benefits of Keynesianism from his lofty perch, to the politician’s delight. He is an empty suit with no common sense, covered with medals and awards, and will make an excellent lightning rod when the time comes.

Krugman is a useful idiot. The fact that much of the government printed money is residing in the coffers of large banks to increase their asset(this used to be known as savings, now its government printed money!) to debt ratio to allow lending and has never entered the economy is ignored. Little has been lent, because there is little demand for the money. Businesses aren’t building factories right now- that’s exclusive of Obeyme’s favorites like Solyndra, and Light Squared that have government loan guarantees. There’s no demand for the money because there is too much uncertainty around the role government will play going forward- it’s not a liquidity problem that caused the economic slow down, which is what Krugman and Bernake would argue.

For those of you interested in learning about the common sense approach to economics taken by Von Mises, Hayek, and the Austrian School, visit mises.org.

OMB

Over the course of the Occupy (fill in the blank) circus, I’ve heard numerous media commentators agonizing over whether kicking the protesters (aka dirty hippies) out was a violation of their 1st Amendment right to peaceable assembly. This, of course, is not the case at all. To begin with, when you put aside all of the various types of violence in which the mob has engaged that prove otherwise, does not the notion that reclaiming public spaces for public use is a 1st Amendment violation assume that the mob has peaceable intentions to begin with?

The mob states their intentions in their own chosen name: to occupy. What are some synonyms of occupying? Try seizing, taking, holding, and inhabiting. In other words, the intent of the group is seize, take, hold, and or inhabit something that belongs to the general public. Their intent is not to demonstrate anything other than the fact that they can deny the use of these public places to ordinary, taxpaying citizens, and disrupt the normalcy of life in these areas.

How then can this assembly be considered of peaceful intent? These are aggressive acts designed to limit the rights of others who have just as much right to use these places as these coddled malcontents with poor hygiene. Tell me something- where can I pull a City permit to seize a particular park or building for an unspecified amount of time? I’m guessing that I’d be laughed out of City Hall for asking. My guess is that there were no legitimate permits (permits not pulled under false pretense) for these seizures of public areas. Further, it is the duty of our elected officials and police to clear these people out so that the rest of us can use these areas as intended, without the risk of stepping in, or being accosted by, human excrement.

And let’s leave no doubt; these so-called demonstrations have their roots in ACORN and in the White House, at the foot of the Community Organizer in Chief. There is nothing organic or grass roots about this. He, Obama, has supported, encouraged, and has even tacitly called for this civil unrest with statement like “I need you to get in people’s faces”, “ you need to get your marching boots on”, and “if they bring a knife to a fight, we bring a gun”, since the beginning of his presidential campaign. When you see these people of Occupy x on television, know that you are looking at what have been in the past referred to as the useful idiots. This is happening because your President wishes it to be so, for whatever reason we can only speculate.

In any case, it’s time for them to go. It is not a violation of their rights to clear them out; it is a re-affirmation of the rights of the rest of the citizenry, who abide by the rules of civil society.

Post on NewsBusters under Herman Cain’s Response to Morgan Freeman’s ignorant comments about those who want Obama out of the White House.

I’m fine with OBAMO’s ‘blackness.’ Herman Cain gets it. It’s OBAMO’s ‘European Whiteness’ I despise. Morgan Freeman DOESN’T get that.

Submitted by ChrisNH on Sun, 09/25/2011 – 7:05am.

An article at MichelleMalkin.com sports a letter written to Wisconsin businesses which supported Scott Walker for Governor.  How scary would it be for you to receive a letter from your police union telling you they disagree with your politics?

Read the article and see the letter here.

What happened to the children of politicians being off limits?  Oh yeah, that is only if it is a democrat…

In 2010 the Republican challenger, Art Robinson to Democrat incumbent Peter DeFazio lost his bid for the congressional seat.  He then announced he would run again in 2012.  After this announcement, three of his children began to be threatened with termination from the graduate program at OSU.  These students are no slackers, the article states one has a GPA of 3.89 and another of 3.91 in Nuclear Engineering. 

One Professor Jack Higginbotham came to the aid of these students and is also now in danger of losing his job.

Read the ENTIRE article by Art Robinson here. As the title of the column states, this is an outrage! So much for civility from so called “liberals”. It is disgusting.

This is taken from the OSU website:

Oregon State welcomes a diverse student body of nearly 24,000 students from across Oregon, all 50 states and more than 100 countries. They can choose from more than 200 undergraduate and more than 80 graduate degree programs, including over 20 degrees offered online. Oregon State increasingly attracts high-achieving students, with nationally recognized programs in areas such as conservation biology, agricultural sciences, nuclear engineering, forestry, fisheries and wildlife management, community health, pharmacy and zoology.

I guess the “diverse student body” part is really only for students who all vote democrat.  As an Oregon resident, my high achieving children will be going elsewhere.

I am not sure that a child could not figure out that this is and was a bad plan.  CBS broke this story last Thursday.  The ATF has actively encouraged agents to allow weapons to be walked across the border into Mexico.  The end game being to bring down the drug cartels by arming them with assault weapons???

One such weapon has been traced to the December 14th 2010  killing of Customs and Border  Protection Agent Brian Terry.

See the CBS story here

American Thinker has a good article including the timeline, here

A follow up at CBS is here.

And so you can see the spin beginning. It would be nice to see this go viral before it can be covered up or spun into something less than despicable.

Union contracted employees in Wisconsin are protesting the state legislature’s attempt to end collective bargaining within the public sector.  I have searched for the actual bill online and have not been able to find it.  However, it is being called a “Union buster”.
 
From what I can gather the State of Wisconsin has had collective bargaining laws since 1959, meaning they “had” to negotiate with the unions.  In other words, they have been hog tied. If the Unions demanded something, it had to be negotiated.

Today we see Wisconsin, like many families, trying to tighten its belt.  We see the union as the muffin top struggling to burst free of constraint. 

My take on unions?  Unions in an historic sense were a good thing.  People banned together to say “Hey!  You need to treat us better Mr. Employer!”  It was not bad to demand fair working conditions.  It still is not a bad thing.  what has happened though, is Unions have become a big business themselves.  Now we are all being treated like 
indentured servants to them.  We are all held hostage to their demands.  Higher pay, more benefits than the private sector. 

The unions are out in force in Wisconsin to protest the inevitable. They are protesting what they cannot stop.  The State can no longer meet the demands, the private sector will no longer pay the bill.  Those people need to get back to work.

Union members need to remember that in these times there are many people who would be thankful to just have a job, even one with few or no benefits.

Suck it in Wisconsin and force the belt one notch tighter.

***UPDATE****

The Democrats have left the state and refuse to vote on the Wisconsin bill!  I hope they will be fired!  How dare they not do their jobs!  Hang in there Governor Walker…

Last week Fox host Sean Hannity interviewed Imam something or other on his show.  The interesting thing is that the next day on the news all I saw were the clips where Hannity calls him an “ S.O.B.”  What is important is at the 10 minute mark Hannity has this guy irritated enough that he actually says “… sharia will come to America”.  He says alot of other twisted stuff as well.  Funny how he doesn’t want Western culture spread, but absolutely fine for them to force this crap on everyone else.

**** Well, perhaps I bailed out too soon? My web host decided to give me 3 months of free service – so I’ll keep it going for the next year! ***

OMB

********************************
When I started this blog, I had no job and plenty of time to write. Now, that situation has completely reversed, and I have no time to write. For the last two years, this has been a great outlet for frustration and a good learning experience as well. I will resurrect the forum next year, during the Presidential election season cycle. To the 4 or 5 of you a week that actually stopped in to read my rantings, thanks! Thanks to pj for keeping this thing going in my absence.

Cheers!

OMB

Win the Future.  Obama said it last night during his speech.  Pelosi spewed it two or three times afterwards.  Again this morning, Obama has mentioned at least twice ( I refuse to watch him again today, but caught a couple of minutes of his comments in Manitowoc,WI ).  Win the future.  I wonder what the logo will look like this time?  I wonder how many fools will fall for this new one liner?  Yes, they can.

Tonight during the President’s State of the Union address, our representatives will be sitting side by side with opposing party members.  They will be co-mingling.  Doesn’t that make you feel better?  Better about our debt, better about our unemployment rate, better about the housing industry, better about the price of gasoline, better about the price of groceries, better about the cost of implementing obamacare, better about rising energy costs, better about EVERYTHING? 

They’re sitting next to each other.  Awesome

Watching the memorial service that was held in Arizona tonight I was taken aback.  I don’t ever remember seeing anything like it before.  Do people no longer know how to behave at a memorial?  The shouting and applause were incongruous at best, disrespectful, irreverent and inappropriate as well. The applause and whoops during the prayer(honestly–you do not applaud during prayer) by the Native American Professor: The President of the University injecting political opinion in introducing the POTUS: The audience members shouting out to Janet Napalitano: The constant pauses for applause by the President himself:  The length of the President’s comments…

Truly, I did not want to feel like this when I tuned in to watch.  I honestly just wanted to share my prayers for those families.  Instead, it felt like a rally.  Perhaps if the President had stopped after admitting that no one knows what set off this crazy man, I  could have found the common ground that he talks about so often.  He went on and on. 

It was a strange memorial. 

So here and now I’ll hold my own.  I offer up my prayers for the families of all the wounded and the dead.  May the recoveries of the wounded be swift and complete.  May the families of those who are lost find peace and comfort.

I know this happened last week  so may be a bit stale for some but now that I have a little time, I thought I would post it.  Does anyone understand what happened here?  When I saw this, all I could think was “What in the world is going on?”  Why on earth did Obama give a press conference over to former President Clinton?  What was that all about?  As President, Obama has kept the entire country waiting for his appearances.  He has been late for virtually everything he has been scheduled for.  He cold not miss a party?  He could not keep Michelle waiting? 

This looked like desperation.  He is losing any credibility he may have had and he knows he is in over his head.  The facade is crumbling….
This is a long video, with Clinton telling everyone that this was the best they could do, etc… just what you would expect. The thing that I found interesting was the abdication of the press conference to a former president.

Over at RightwingRocker RWR had a great post on conservatism after the elections this month. There were many comments (you may read RWR’s original post and the responses here) and one in particular which I’ll repost below:

By OreoThunder

We conservatives have rallied against what we see as President Barack Obama’s “wealth redistribution” policies. For us, Obama’s infamous meeting with Joe the Plumber, during which the future president said he wanted to “spread the wealth around,” was a defining moment.

Nearly two years into Obama’s presidency, the debate about government’s role in redistributing wealth continues to be a central one in American politics. Too often, however, conservatives allow this debate to center around the issue of “fairness.” Liberals believe it would be “fair” if the “wealthy” were taxed more in order to support government programs intended to benefit the less fortunate. Conservatives counter that no “fairness” can exist in a society where income is forcibly taken from those who have earned it, regardless of the intent.

Such a debate will never be settled. Words such as “fair” and “wealthy” defy definition, and any argument that presupposes a shared meaning is doomed from the start. The real challenge for liberals, then, is not in convincing conservatives of the true definition of “fair” or how much income makes one “wealthy.” The real challenge facing liberals is a much more basic one. In order to present a truly sound argument for redistributing wealth, liberals must focus not on distribution at all. Instead, they must solve for wealth creation.

Any government with a sufficiently armed police force has the ability to redistribute wealth. There’s nothing complicated about forcing an individual to give up some or even all of his or her wealth at the threat of incarceration. That’s easy. The dilemma, however, lies in doing so while at the same time maintaining an environment in which those who create wealth are motivated to continue doing so.

If wealth simply appeared out of nowhere, the liberal view of “fair” distribution would certainly have merit, especially from a purely social perspective. Who could argue that a free and abundant resource should be equally shared by all? Wealth, however, does not simply appear. It is the result of ingenuity, effort and risk-taking. If we fail to make it worthwhile — or make it unnecessarily burdensome — for individuals and organizations to apply ingenuity, put forth effort and take risks, there no longer exists an incentive to create wealth.

Because a policy of redistribution destroys the motivation to create wealth, such a policy cannot be sustained. There is a terminal point to a policy of wealth redistribution — the inevitable point where wealth creation simply ceases, or at least decreases to a level that cannot support the standard of living enjoyed at the policy’s inception.

Liberals must solve for wealth creation. Any policy that seeks to redistribute wealth but at the same time decreases the incentive for its creation will ultimately collapse on itself. For liberal policies to work, there must exist at the same time an increasing tax burden on wealth and an increasing incentive to create wealth. This paradox is not overcome by some vague concept of “fairness.” Basic economics cannot be permanently ignored.

This liberal dilemma is an example of something we see more and more in today’s political environment: a clash between social ideology and economic reality. We can even go back to the 2008 economic downturn to see this dynamic at work. A social ideology (everyone should own a home) led to government-mandated lending practices that ultimately ran headlong into economic reality (not everyone can repay a home loan). The result was economic disaster.

It is an interesting irony that the very capitalism decried by liberals is responsible for the wealth they want to redistribute under their banner of “fairness.” Until, however, they can adequately solve for creation — rather than simply call for redistribution — their arguments amount to nothing more than hollow, irrational ranting. Perhaps this is what Winston Churchill meant when he said, “If you’re 20 and not liberal you have no heart, but if you’re 40 and not conservative, you have no brain.”

Thanks for the headsup Rocker! I haven’t had much time lately to post!~~~PJ

This man has a spine!  He rips them a new one!