The Greater Depression

**Note** What have we always said, A Big Government Progressive is a Big Government Progressive. Sides of the aisle do not matter.

 

You can’t say we haven’t been warned. Despite the high debt price tag  resulting from the government intervention and arbitrary price controls designed  to “spur the economy” during the American Great Depression, modern politicians  on both sides of the aisle are more than willing to repeat the same mistakes.  Interestingly, just as Herbert Hoover is blamed by leftist historians (but I  repeat myself) for leading us into the Depression with his so-called free-market  policies, so is George W. Bush blamed for his “capitalistic” tendencies. This is  nonsense of course, both Hoover and Bush implemented interventionist economic  policies that were exactly the antithesis of free-market capitalism. And both  were succeeded by men who took their economic strategies (i.e. political  compromises) and opened them up to full-throttle. What Hoover and Bush began,  FDR and Obama have respectively finished.

In his book, America’s Great Depression, Murray Rothbard sets the  record on Hoover in proper perspective:

Hoover’s role as founder of a revolutionary program of government planning to  combat depression has been unjustly neglected by historians. Franklin D.  Roosevelt, in large part, merely elaborated the policies laid down by his  predecessor. To scoff at Hoover’s tragic failure to cure the depression as a  typical example of laissez-faire [meaning “allow to act,” or  free-enterprise] is drastically to misread the historical record. The Hoover  rout must be set down as a failure of government planning and not of the free  market.

Continue Reading

Just Look to the Government

Changing Definitions Doesn’t Change Reality

 by: the Common Constitutionalist

I’ve decided to change the name of some words and thus their meaning. Anyone having a problem with it or tells me I can’t is a bigot, racist, homophobe, etc.

From now on, the word dog will be asteroid, because I’ve always wanted to walk an asteroid. Wow, that was easy. Let’s do another. I will change the word walk to can opener. Why? Because I want to. Ok, this is working so well, let’s do one more. Let’s change crap to Obama. Now let us use them in a sentence. “Son; make sure when you take the asteroid out for his can opener, you pick up his Obama. I like it.

But, you may say, the old words perfectly describe the act and objects quite well. They’ve been called dog, walk and crap for a long time. Everyone already knows and accepts them as their original names. It’s tradition. Why change them now? Because I want to and if you don’t let me I’ll sue to get the names changed.

Well, obviously that scenario is ridiculous, but is it anymore absurd than changing a tradition that is thousands of years old?

Of course I’m speaking of the term homosexual marriage. I believe the reason homosexuals wish to marry, is not for love, but due to the tax code. Now, don’t you your panties in a bunch. I’m not saying that two women or two men or six men and three women or five men and a penguin can’t love one another. I suppose they can and frankly it’s none of my or your damn business.

What I am saying is that marriage is a tradition reserved for the union of one man and one woman. That’s what God intended and far be it from me to countermand his desire. Men and women have been marrying for thousands of years and not until relatively recently has that marriage had to be sanctioned and interfered with by the almighty government.

I contend that without government meddling in every facet of people’s lives, this would not be an issue.

We all realize that government, through the tax code, have been picking winners and losers. Through tweaking the code they are able to grant favor to one group while disenfranchising another.

What do homosexuals really want? Is it really about the love or is it the benefits? Is it the hospital visitation rights, the transfer of wealth free of taxation or the many other government giveaways that benefit those who have married, have children, day care, own a home or the dozens of other tax breaks.

As if no one would have children, buy a home, or select the correct beneficiary for their estate without financial coercion of the state. Ridiculous!

It is my contention that homosexuals would have never made such a fuss over marriage if the government hadn’t stepped in long ago to promote what they felt was beneficial to society.

It’s like virtually everything else that is wrong with this country. Progressives in government meddle in private citizens’ affairs, attempt to legislate the perfect society and voila, we get the housing collapse, banking problems, gas prices, CAFE standards and on and on. And now we have homosexual marriage. To find the genesis of any problem this country has faced  just look back to when our federal government initially involved itself.

Civil Unions, ok, but marriage, no. That’s one tradition that should be upheld for as long as we inhabit this earth.

Climate Changers

by: the Common Constitutionalist

The following are excerpts from an article in the British publication, The Economist, written Nov. 2008. That’s just 5 years ago. I know in seems a lot longer considering our current state of affairs in this country:

The Economist “The most important year for climate change since 2001, when the Kyoto protocol (which set targets for cutting carbon-dioxide emissions) was agreed, will be 2009… The first period of the protocol runs out in 2012. The deal to replace it is supposed to be done at the United Nations’ Climate Change conference in Copenhagen…”

 “No deal means that mankind gives up on trying to save the planet.”

 

Wow, really? Is the planet in that much danger? It must be. These men of science wouldn’t overstate a problem, or create one, just to score political points and extract money from us?

It continues:

 “The rich world (especially America) needs to commit itself to legally enforceable carbon-emissions reductions… The rich world, which has been responsible for most emissions so far and recognises that it needs to pay up… The Clean Development Mechanism, which was set up under Kyoto to allow rich countries to buy carbon credits from poor countries that have cut their emission, does that already, but is probably not robust enough to do the job on the scale needed.”

 kyoto protocol

I was shocked, and I’m sure you as well, to see America singled out. I was also surprised to read that carbon credit purchasing isn’t solving the problem. Huh.

They seemed to be quite pleased at the arrival of “The One”:

 “What happens in Washington is most important. Progress on climate change is much likelier under the new administration than the old, for the new one is committed to introducing mandatory federal carbon-emissions cuts through a cap-and-trade scheme…”

 

So what’s the big deal? That was old news. Nothing has changed. The eco-weenies will never change, you say. No matter what happens they will never change their tune on climate change or man-caused global warming.

Well, not so fast. It seems that actual science may be catching up to the hysteria. I know, dare to dream, but in a March 30 article in the very same publication, the folks at The Economist seem to report honestly of the un-changing climate:

 “OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar… And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”

 

This must have killed Hansen to even utter these words, for he is dishonest climate change whore, and that’s being kind.

Continuing:

 “Temperatures fluctuate over short periods, but this lack of new warming is a surprise… If they remain flat, they will fall outside the models’ range within a few years.”

 Climate Graph

“The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now. It does not mean global warming is a delusion.”

 

No, of course not. The only deluded people have been us man-caused climate change deniers. And it’s funny that they are always surprised when nothing happens. Kind of exactly as we’ve been predicting for years.

The article continues:

 “…an increasing body of research is suggesting, it may be that the climate is responding to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before. This possibility, if true, could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy.”

 

Ruh Ro Reorge. The earth is cleaning itself?! The profound significance could be that as nothing continues to happen, it’s already getting harder to keep beating that same old world apocalypse drum.

The rest of the article is rather long and boring with explanations of new climate modelling, sprinkled with a lot of what-ifs, in an attempt to further the global warming cause.

Although we on the reasonable side of this argument can be slightly heartened by this quasi-admission, this battle is far from over. These folks will not go down without a fight. They have far too much to lose.

We may, in the long run, win this war against the climate weenies, and heh, as the world economy crumbles and we all go the way of Cyprus, no one will worry about man-made climate change.

Report: More Doctors Plan to Retire Early

A majority of physicians see a somewhat bleak future for medicine, pointing to
eroding independence and shrinking income, reports everydayhealth.com.

According to a survey from  the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions of more than 600 doctors, six in 10
physicians said they expect many of their colleagues to retire earlier than  planned in the next 1 to 3 years.

That perception cuts across age, gender and specialty.

Another 55 percent of doctors surveyed believe many  of their colleagues will cut back on their hours because of the way medicine is
changing, although the survey didn’t delineate on how it was changing.

Seventy-five percent believe the best and brightest may not consider a  career in medicine, an increase from the 2011 survey result of 69
percent.

Continue Reading

Shocker…Illegals to Get Free Healthcare

**Note** As you read this article, ask yourself who couldn’t have seen this coming? This has been part of the lefts end came from the start. It is a perfect example of compromise begets more compromise. Compromise once and it not only gets easier but boxes you in. You are expected to continue and it gets more and more difficult to eventually draw the line in the sand.

Immigration Vote Splits Gang of 8

 

The Senate’s bipartisan immigration working group split along party lines during a contentious budget vote to prevent illegal immigrants who receive legal status from receiving federal health benefits.

The Senate early Saturday morning defeated the amendment to the budget resolution which would have put the Senate on record as opposing access to health care under Medicaid or the Affordable Care Act for undocumented immigrants who get a green card.

The amendment, which failed 43 to 56, was offered by Senate Budget ranking member Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.

All Democrats — including gang members Dick Durbin of Illinois, Bob Menendez of New Jersey, Charles E. Schumer of New York and Michael Bennet of Colorado — opposed the amendment. They were joined by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. All other Republicans — including immigration negotiators Marco Rubio of Florida, John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Jeff Flake of Arizona — supported the amendment.

The gang of eight has been negotiating a comprehensive immigration reform package that they hope to unveil when the Senate returns the week of April 8 from spring recess.

Sessions contended the vote bodes poorly for the state of negotiations.

“The result of today’s vote places immigration reform in jeopardy,” Sessions said.

Immigration reform advocates, including National Council of La Raza, said Friday they would be monitoring what they contend to be any anti-immigrant votes and put members of both parties on notice that their votes would be remembered come election day.

During debate, Sessions argued that illegal immigrants who are given legal status in the future should not be eligible for these health care benefits.

Continue Reading

Sequestor… What?

Despite sequester, Obama to designate five national monuments

 

Even as President Obama highlights impending cuts to national parks  because  of the sequester, he plans to use his power  as president to  designate five new national monuments Monday, according to an   administration official.

The new monuments will be: the Rio  Grande del Norte National Monument  in New Mexico; the San  Juan Islands National Monument in Washington  State; the First  State National Monument in Delaware and Pennsylvania;  the Charles  Young Buffalo Soldiers National Monument in Ohio and a  monument  commemorating Harriet Tubman and her role  in helping black  slaves reach freedom through the the Underground Railway in  Maryland.

Rick Smith, of the Coalition  of National Park Retirees, said that the  president acted because Congress  had failed to enact legislation  creating more parks and protected sites.

“Americans support and want more parks and monuments because they  boost  local economies, preserve our national heritage and tell our  diverse American  story,” Mr. Smith told the paper. “In  particular, all  Americans can be proud with the establishment of the First  State  National Monument in Delaware — all 50 states are now home  to an area  included in our National Park System.”

Continue Reading