Tuesday, 23 July 2013

Krugman on Detroit: Move Along, Folks; Nothing to See Here!


Krugman on Detroit: Move Along, Folks; Nothing to See Here!
Scott Shackford
Jul. 22, 2013 11:53 am

We know economist Paul Krugman has taken to avoiding reading competing economic and political theories, but has he given up all reading altogether in order to perhaps avoid accidental exposure? In Sunday's New York Times, Krugman tackles the Detroit bankruptcy and determines that the important thing is that we stop comparing America's various fiscal problems with Greece's:

As you may recall, a few years ago Greece plunged into fiscal crisis. This was a bad thing but should have had limited effects on the rest of the world; the Greek economy is, after all, quite small (actually, about one and a half times as big as the economy of metropolitan Detroit). Unfortunately, many politicians and policy makers used the Greek crisis to hijack the debate, changing the subject from job creation to fiscal rectitude.
Now, the truth was that Greece was a very special case, holding few if any lessons for wider economic policy ­ and even in Greece, budget deficits were only one piece of the problem. Nonetheless, for a while policy discourse across the Western world was completely "Hellenized" ­ everyone was Greece, or was about to turn into Greece. And this intellectual wrong turn did huge damage to prospects for economic recovery.

What made Greece such a very special case? Why is it so different from, say, Spain's economic situation? Or even Detroit's? Why is an economist saying there's little to learn about economic policy from a failing state? All of this is simply asserted.

Krugman, amazingly, pivots to argue that Detroit's budgets and pension obligations are not part of the problem:

Never mind the repeated failure of the predicted U.S. fiscal crisis to materialize, the sharp fall in predicted U.S. debt levels and the way much of the research the scolds used to justify their scolding has been discredited; let's obsess about municipal budgets and public pension obligations!
Or, actually, let's not.
Are Detroit's woes the leading edge of a national public pensions crisis? No. State and local pensions are indeed underfunded, with experts at Boston College putting the total shortfall at $1 trillion. But many governments are taking steps to address the shortfall. These steps aren't yet sufficient; the Boston College estimates suggest that overall pension contributions this year will be about $25 billion less than they should be. But in a $16 trillion economy, that's just not a big deal ­ and even if you make more pessimistic assumptions, as some but not all accountants say you should, it still isn't a big deal.

What a ludicrous way of looking at the pension crisis, and obviously deliberately so. Cities are actually in the real world going bankrupt due to these pension commitments. It is not an imaginary problem and most importantly, not unique to Detroit. But you can try to present it as an imaginary problem by comparing an individual city's budget to the size of the entire country's economy with no context or explanation why it matters. Well, it matters to Krugman, because no doubt he sees the answer to the problem as "bailout," which is his answer to everything. What do you mean San Bernardino and Stockton can't pay the bills? We've got all this money! That the size of the pension commitments is growing is not addressed at all. "Many governments are taking steps to address the shortfall." Yes, they're filing for bankruptcy. Did he even look at a list of Detroit's creditors?

But no, Krugman knows why Detroit failed. It's because of the free market! Of course, it is:

So was Detroit just uniquely irresponsible? Again, no. Detroit does seem to have had especially bad governance, but for the most part the city was just an innocent victim of market forces.
What? Market forces have victims? Of course they do. After all, free-market enthusiasts love to quote Joseph Schumpeter about the inevitability of "creative destruction" ­ but they and their audiences invariably picture themselves as being the creative destroyers, not the creatively destroyed. Well, guess what: Someone always ends up being the modern equivalent of a buggy-whip producer, and it might be you.
Sometimes the losers from economic change are individuals whose skills have become redundant; sometimes they're companies, serving a market niche that no longer exists; and sometimes they're whole cities that lose their place in the economic ecosystem. Decline happens.

Y'all, it just happened! There are no policy issues here. Pay no attention to Detroit's incredibly high tax rate! He goes on to blame "job sprawl" moving folks away from Detroit's city center without noting anything about Detroit's massive physical size or, you know, actual reasons that push businesses out of the city. As Reason's own Shikha Dalmia noted, Detroit chose bureaucracy over entrepreneurial spirit, shutting down 1,500 "illegal" businesses that weren't complying with city regulations. Detroit's leadership did not want to provide citizens with the kind of freedom the city needs to recover, and so it did not. You can only be a "victim" of Schumpeter's idea of creative destruction if you refuse to or aren't allowed to adapt.

Krugman's conclusion:

The important thing is not to let the discussion get hijacked, Greek-style. There are influential people out there who would like you to believe that Detroit's demise is fundamentally a tale of fiscal irresponsibility and/or greedy public employees. It isn't. For the most part, it's just one of those things that happens now and then in an ever-changing economy.

"Shit happens" is apparently valid economic theory. It's also undoubtedly the only argument you could use if you want to argue that Detroit should get a federal bailout.

Oh, and a postscript: Greece's latest bailout from international lenders is tied to a commitment to reduce the size of its public employee work force. No, certainly, there's no comparison.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/22/krugman-on-detroit-move-along-folks-noth?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

Re: Basic Economics

<Grin>!  Hey Michael!  I have been reading the web site since I posted that, and see who the libertarian democrats and the proverbial "Freemen"  consist of.  Obviously not what I was initially thinking.
 
Thanks for sharing this with the group,  like I said initially, there is a lot of good information here, and worth everyone to take a look at and study.

 

 

 



On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:32 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

[yes, I recognize the backhanded ad hominem ... ]

About The Freeman
The Freeman is the flagship publication of the Foundation for Economic Education and one of the oldest and most respected journals of liberty in America. For more than 50 years it has uncompromisingly defended the ideals of the free society.
Through its articles, commentaries and book reviews, several generations of Americans have also learned the consequences and contradictions that flow from collectivism, interventionism, and the welfare state.
No other magazine, outlet, or scholarly journal introduces readers to so many implications of what the free society is all about: its moral legitimacy, its tremendous efficiency, and its liberating effects in every area of life.
(fee.org)


During FEE's early years, it published essays, pamphlets and booklets dealing with various aspects of libertarian philosophy. The authors included both classical liberals of the past, such as Frédéric Bastiat and Andrew Dickson White, and such contemporary authors as Milton Friedman, George Stigler and Ayn Rand. [2] In 1955, FEE introduced a quarterly, Ideas on Liberty, which in January 1956 was merged with The Freeman, a bi-weekly free-market oriented news magazine which had been published in New York City since 1950. Due to low sales in the 1950s, the publication encountered financial problems and was taken over by FEE, an educational, tax-exempt Foundation in 1956. At the time of its take-over, it changed from a bi-weekly to a monthly publication initially called The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty. [ citation needed]

The editors of The Freeman have included Henry Hazlitt, John Chamberlain, Suzanne La Follette, Paul L. Poirot, Brian Summers, Charles Hamilton, and John Robbins. Henry Hazlitt, an economist and journalist, had been one of FEE's founders and his articles continued to appear regularly in The Freeman after its take-over by FEE. John Chamberlain became FEE's regular book reviewer and his reviews appeared in The Freeman until his death in 1995. Leonard Read, FEE's President, was also a regular contributor, as was FEE's economic adviser, Austrian School economist Ludwig von Mises. Other contributors in the 1950s included: Barbara Branden, James Burnham, Frank Chodorov, John Dos Passos, Max Eastman, John T. Flynn, F. A. Hayek, Frank Meyer, Raymond Moley, Roscoe Pound, Wilhelm Röpke, Murray Rothbard, Morrie Ryskind and George Sokolsky . [3]

The Freeman is widely considered to be an important forerunner to the conservative publication National Review magazine, which was founded in 1955, and which from its inception included many of the same contributing editors. [4]

During its more than half century of publication, The Freeman has featured articles by economists, businessmen, professors, teachers, statesmen (domestic and foreign), students, housewives, free-lance writers, and budding libertarians. Many of its authors have gone on to become noted authors, teachers, and founders of libertarian organizations. It continues to discuss current economic and governmental issues from the same libertarian viewpoint which sparked the founding of FEE. [ citation needed]

On October 15th, 2012, it was announced that Sheldon Richman, who had been editor since 1997, was to be replaced by Max Borders. The move was seen as controversial and angered many readers due to pro-war views expressed by Borders. [5] The writers whose work has appeared in The Freeman in recent decades include such libertarians as Charles W. Baird, Donald J. Boudreaux, Clarence Carson, [6] Stephen Davies, Richard Epstein, Burton Folsom, Jr., David R. Henderson, Robert Higgs, David Kelley, Tibor Machan, Wendy McElroy, Lawrence W. Reed, George Reisman, Hans Sennholz, Bernard Siegan, John Stossel, George Leef, Thomas Szasz and Walter E. Williams.
(wikipedia)



At 10:25 PM 7/23/2013, you wrote:
On the surface of this,  some good stuff here.....I am a little worried to dig and see who is producing this.....I see the word, "Freeman"  on the first page (and a couple of others I have only just perused);  but thanks for sharing this! 

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 8:16 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Basic Economics
Are you looking for an introduction to economics and the economic way of thinking? Complete these modules and you will have a solid introduction to college-level Economics 101.



Beginner


Comparative Advantage
Demand
Division of Labor
Economies of Scale
The Invisible Hand
Marginal Analysis
Market Failure
Market Power
Opportunity Cost
Price


Intermediate


Profit
The Broken Window Fallacy



  http://www.fee.org/education_modules/category/basic-economics#ixzz2ZuwNo5K9

--
--
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.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 


--
--
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.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
--
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.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
--
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.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

Islam: According To Some; "Not America's Concern"

This is a pretty short film.   I hope everyone will take the time to watch it.  It's a film of the annual New York Islamic parade,  from September 23, 2012:
 

--
--
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.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

Re: Basic Economics


[yes, I recognize the backhanded ad hominem ... ]

About The Freeman
The Freeman is the flagship publication of the Foundation for Economic Education and one of the oldest and most respected journals of liberty in America. For more than 50 years it has uncompromisingly defended the ideals of the free society.
Through its articles, commentaries and book reviews, several generations of Americans have also learned the consequences and contradictions that flow from collectivism, interventionism, and the welfare state.
No other magazine, outlet, or scholarly journal introduces readers to so many implications of what the free society is all about: its moral legitimacy, its tremendous efficiency, and its liberating effects in every area of life.
(fee.org)


During FEE's early years, it published essays, pamphlets and booklets dealing with various aspects of libertarian philosophy. The authors included both classical liberals of the past, such as Frédéric Bastiat and Andrew Dickson White, and such contemporary authors as Milton Friedman, George Stigler and Ayn Rand. [2] In 1955, FEE introduced a quarterly, Ideas on Liberty, which in January 1956 was merged with The Freeman, a bi-weekly free-market oriented news magazine which had been published in New York City since 1950. Due to low sales in the 1950s, the publication encountered financial problems and was taken over by FEE, an educational, tax-exempt Foundation in 1956. At the time of its take-over, it changed from a bi-weekly to a monthly publication initially called The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty. [ citation needed]

The editors of The Freeman have included Henry Hazlitt, John Chamberlain, Suzanne La Follette, Paul L. Poirot, Brian Summers, Charles Hamilton, and John Robbins. Henry Hazlitt, an economist and journalist, had been one of FEE's founders and his articles continued to appear regularly in The Freeman after its take-over by FEE. John Chamberlain became FEE's regular book reviewer and his reviews appeared in The Freeman until his death in 1995. Leonard Read, FEE's President, was also a regular contributor, as was FEE's economic adviser, Austrian School economist Ludwig von Mises. Other contributors in the 1950s included: Barbara Branden, James Burnham, Frank Chodorov, John Dos Passos, Max Eastman, John T. Flynn, F. A. Hayek, Frank Meyer, Raymond Moley, Roscoe Pound, Wilhelm Röpke, Murray Rothbard, Morrie Ryskind and George Sokolsky . [3]

The Freeman is widely considered to be an important forerunner to the conservative publication National Review magazine, which was founded in 1955, and which from its inception included many of the same contributing editors. [4]

During its more than half century of publication, The Freeman has featured articles by economists, businessmen, professors, teachers, statesmen (domestic and foreign), students, housewives, free-lance writers, and budding libertarians. Many of its authors have gone on to become noted authors, teachers, and founders of libertarian organizations. It continues to discuss current economic and governmental issues from the same libertarian viewpoint which sparked the founding of FEE. [ citation needed]

On October 15th, 2012, it was announced that Sheldon Richman, who had been editor since 1997, was to be replaced by Max Borders. The move was seen as controversial and angered many readers due to pro-war views expressed by Borders. [5] The writers whose work has appeared in The Freeman in recent decades include such libertarians as Charles W. Baird, Donald J. Boudreaux, Clarence Carson, [6] Stephen Davies, Richard Epstein, Burton Folsom, Jr., David R. Henderson, Robert Higgs, David Kelley, Tibor Machan, Wendy McElroy, Lawrence W. Reed, George Reisman, Hans Sennholz, Bernard Siegan, John Stossel, George Leef, Thomas Szasz and Walter E. Williams.
(wikipedia)



At 10:25 PM 7/23/2013, you wrote:
On the surface of this,  some good stuff here.....I am a little worried to dig and see who is producing this.....I see the word, "Freeman"  on the first page (and a couple of others I have only just perused);  but thanks for sharing this! 

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 8:16 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Basic Economics
Are you looking for an introduction to economics and the economic way of thinking? Complete these modules and you will have a solid introduction to college-level Economics 101.



Beginner


Comparative Advantage
Demand
Division of Labor
Economies of Scale
The Invisible Hand
Marginal Analysis
Market Failure
Market Power
Opportunity Cost
Price


Intermediate


Profit
The Broken Window Fallacy



  http://www.fee.org/education_modules/category/basic-economics#ixzz2ZuwNo5K9

--
--
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.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 


--
--
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.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

Re: Basic Economics

On the surface of this,  some good stuff here.....I am a little worried to dig and see who is producing this.....I see the word, "Freeman"  on the first page (and a couple of others I have only just perused);  but thanks for sharing this! 

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 8:16 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Basic Economics
Are you looking for an introduction to economics and the economic way of thinking? Complete these modules and you will have a solid introduction to college-level Economics 101.


Beginner


Comparative Advantage
Demand
Division of Labor
Economies of Scale
The Invisible Hand
Marginal Analysis
Market Failure
Market Power
Opportunity Cost
Price



Intermediate


Profit
The Broken Window Fallacy

  http://www.fee.org/education_modules/category/basic-economics#ixzz2ZuwNo5K9

--
--
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.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
--
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.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

Leading from behind Al Sharpton


Leading from behind Al Sharpton
By: Patrick J. Buchanan
7/23/2013 06:00 AM

"The First Black President … Spoke First as a Black American," ran the banner headline of Sunday's Washington Post.

But why, when the fires of anger over the Zimmerman verdict were dying down, did he go into that pressroom and stir them up?

"A week of protests outside the White House, pressure building on him inside the White House, pushed him to that podium," said Tavis Smiley on "Meet the Press." Black leaders demanded Obama come out of hiding and stand in solidarity with the aggrieved and outraged.

Belatedly and meekly, Obama complied.

"Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago," said Obama.

But which Trayvon?

The one walking home with Skittles and tea? Or the one who sucker-punched Zimmerman, decked him, piled on, pummeled him martial arts style, hammered his head on the sidewalk, ignored his screams for help and got shot by the guy he was assaulting?

For that is the story Zimmerman told, Sanford police believed, the lone eyewitness confirmed, the defense argued, the prosecution could not shake and the jury believed. Not guilty, on all counts.

If Obama thinks the verdict was justified, why did he not urge that the demonstrations, marches, vandalism and violence cease?

If he agrees Zimmerman got away with murder -- "an atrocity," Al Sharpton said of the verdict -- why did Obama hide behind this mush: "Once the jury's spoken, that's how the system works."

The president sent his "thoughts and prayers" to Trayvon's family.

To George Zimmerman, painted as a racist monster for 16 months, hiding in fear of his life, his Peruvian mother and family under threat -- not a word of compassion from the president.

Obama moved swiftly off the trial and into a rambling discourse on the black experience and racial profiling.

But why? The jury said Trayvon was not profiled.

What is Obama up to? Answer. A law professor, he knows this case, based on evidence and testimony, was open and shut. And he knows Eric Holder is not going to file any hate-crime civil rights charges.

Because Holder and Obama know they would be seen as caving to Sharpton & Co., they would get stuffed in court, and the nation would react with outrage to a double-jeopardy, murder-charge, racial prosecution of this persecuted man whose innocence was established in a court of law.

So Obama swiftly changed the subject.

"There are very few African-American men who haven't had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me … before I was a senator."

"There are very few African-Americans who haven't had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off."

"That happens often," said Obama. Undeniably. But why do black males awaken such apprehensions and fears? Is it their color?

Well, 13 percent of our population is black. Half of that -- say, 6 plus percent -- is male. Of that 6 percent, one in six -- just 1 percent of the U.S. population -- consists of black males age 18 to 29.

Of all black males 18 to 29, writes Ron Unz in "Race and Crime in America," 28 percent are in jail or prison, or on probation.

The "liberal Sentencing Project organization," says Unz, estimates that "one-third of all black men are already convicted criminals by their 20s, and the fraction would surely be far higher for those living in urban areas."

Twenty years ago in Chicago, where black kids are gunned down daily, Jesse Jackson was quoted, "There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved."

That's the same apprehension, Mr. President, those women feel on that elevator.

Obama traced the "violence … in poor black neighborhoods" to "poverty and … a very difficult history.

But slavery and segregation were far closer in time to the black America of the 1950s, and poverty was far greater. Yet we never saw crime and incarceration rates like we see today in Black America.

As Unz writes, El Paso, Texas, and Atlanta are cities of equal size and poverty rates. Yet Atlanta has 10 times the crime. Oakland and Santa Ana, Calif., are equal in size and poverty numbers. Yet Oakland "has several times the rate of crime." Why?

Why are white folks nervous about strange young black men in the neighborhood? Perhaps because they commit interracial muggings, robberies and rapes at 35 times the rate of whites.

As newspapers avoid the issue of black racism and rarely give the stats on interracial crime, Obama dwelt lovingly on the indignities of racial profiling -- without really addressing the root cause.

It was an uncourageous commentary. Weak as Kool-Aid, said Tavis.

But Obama was where he likes to be, leading from behind -- this time behind Al Sharpton.

http://www.humanevents.com/2013/07/23/leading-from-behind-al-sharpton/

Re: 7 liberal reactions on Twitter to the birth of the royal baby (as I imagi...

Hello Bill!
 
And thus, I assume.....The reason for the Oprah Channel; the Lifetime Channel, and a whole bunch of other cable channels that can broadcast this crap 24/7.   But the national news?   Come on! 
 
I keep the national news on (usually FOX News)  in the background here in the office, if there is nothing major going on in my office.....I've had enough of Martha McCallum reporting in front of the hospital,  and Shepard Smith reporting on the first nappy utilized for his Royal Bottom.   

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 8:51 PM, <Hot4azintop@aol.com> wrote:
I am not "sick and tired of hearing about the Royal Baby" in fact I love the story of renewal, change and con sentiency in this world. I'm of the age, 70, when most of the stories and lives around me are disappearing and passing on so a birth of a baby is wonderful news and brings hope to me and others of change with love and understanding. So give it up old cynical politicaly correct what ever you are.....Bill
In a message dated 7/23/2013 2:50:09 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, plainolamerican@gmail.com writes:
 I am about sick and tired of hearing about the Royal Baby! 
---
it embarrassing to Americans coo over 'royalty.'

how soon some forget.

On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 1:19:42 PM UTC-5, KeithInTampa wrote:
Some of those are pretty good.....Having said that,  I am about sick and tired of hearing about the Royal Baby! Martha McCallum can come on back home now.......

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Travis <baco...@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.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforu...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
--
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.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
--
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.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
--
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.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

Re: 7 liberal reactions on Twitter to the birth of the royal baby (as I imagi...

I am not "sick and tired of hearing about the Royal Baby" in fact I love the story of renewal, change and con sentiency in this world. I'm of the age, 70, when most of the stories and lives around me are disappearing and passing on so a birth of a baby is wonderful news and brings hope to me and others of change with love and understanding. So give it up old cynical politicaly correct what ever you are.....Bill
In a message dated 7/23/2013 2:50:09 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, plainolamerican@gmail.com writes:
 I am about sick and tired of hearing about the Royal Baby! 
---
it embarrassing to Americans coo over 'royalty.'

how soon some forget.

On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 1:19:42 PM UTC-5, KeithInTampa wrote:
Some of those are pretty good.....Having said that,  I am about sick and tired of hearing about the Royal Baby! Martha McCallum can come on back home now.......

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Travis <baco...@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.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforu...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
--
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.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

Basic Economics


Basic Economics
Are you looking for an introduction to economics and the economic way of thinking? Complete these modules and you will have a solid introduction to college-level Economics 101.


Beginner


Comparative Advantage
Demand
Division of Labor
Economies of Scale
The Invisible Hand
Marginal Analysis
Market Failure
Market Power
Opportunity Cost
Price



Intermediate


Profit
The Broken Window Fallacy

  http://www.fee.org/education_modules/category/basic-economics#ixzz2ZuwNo5K9

Hell Explained

From our member Bear, I thought this was worth sharing!<Grin>! I too would have given this chap an A+ too! Great answer!

 
HELL EXPLAINED
BY A CHEMISTRY STUDENT B. T.
The following is an actual question given on a University of Arizona chemistry midterm, and an actual answer turned in by a student.
The answer by one student was so 'profound' that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well :
Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.
One student, however, wrote the following:
First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate
at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving, which is unlikely.. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's
look at the different religions that exist in the world today.
Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.
This gives two possibilities
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.
So which is it?
If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that,
'It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you,' and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is
that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct..... ...leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting 'Oh my God.'
THIS STUDENT RECEIVED AN A+.



--
--
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.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

Rep. Louie Gohmert's Challenge to America: Fight Islamic Tyranny




Rep. Louie Gohmert's Challenge to America

Posted By Faith J. H. McDonnell On July 23, 2013

It is not often one hears a member of the U.S. House of Representatives refer to the building of a global Caliphate in the Middle East — something which both Christians and non-Islamist Muslims in that part of the world take very seriously. The idea of a coming global Caliphate is hardly even on the radar for most members of Congress. But in his House floor speech broadcast on C-SPAN last Friday, July 19, 2013, U.S. Representative Louis Gohmert (TX-01) did just that.

Speaking for almost an hour, Gohmert warned that we were witnessing "the rise of a new Ottoman Empire in the Middle East, which, unfortunately, the Obama Administration has helped jumpstart." He also declared that the rising of the people of Egypt against a radical Islamist Muslim Brotherhood government has caused the "grand scheme of building a great Caliphate" to run into a "huge problem." The Texas Republican called for the United States government to once again be seen as supporting and defending those seeking true freedom and democracy.

Congressman Gohmert contrasted the so-called Arab Spring with the current "major, incredible, earthshaking revolution going on in Egypt." He assessed frankly the Obama Administration's promotion of the Arab "Spring" and contrasted this with how the United States government and most of the mainstream media now appear to be at odds with those resisting the domination of radical Islam. In addition, Gohmert, who is Vice Chair of the House Judiciary subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, connected the dots between the Obama Administration's foreign policy, United States national security, and the increasing persecution of Christians, Jews, and other religious minorities in Islam-dominated parts of the world.

According to foreign policy and terrorism expert Dr. Walid Phares, one House observer called Gohmert's speech "the most powerful speech in the defense of reformers, democracy seekers, seculars, Christian Copts, and Muslim moderates in Egypt in the history of the US Congress, to date." But the congressman's speech was even more than that. It was a defense of reformers in Egypt and beyond, and it was an education in foreign policy for those who have ears to hear.

Speaking of Libya, Gohmert said that it seemed clear that Ghadafi had stopped supporting terrorism after the U.S. took out Saddam Hussein in 2003. Libya, Algeria, and Mali were actually focused on combating Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) terrorism in the Sahel region. Gohmert recollected how they were told that the U.S. has "no national security interest in Libya" by then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, but that President Obama decided, with the support of 57 Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) states, as well as NATO states that get oil from Libya, to use U.S. assets to take out Ghadafi.

"Consistency is very important in foreign policy, and yet we don't seem to be very consistent in using our military powers to oust Ghadafi after he had had a 'conversion experience' and was doing what he could to help us fight terrorism," said Gohmert. This was especially troubling after there was intelligence that Al Qaeda was backing rebels. "We knew that there were radical Islamists trying to drive Ghadafi out," Gohmert continued, "and this administration did not pause long enough to get an answer to the question: 'If we drive Ghadafi out, would we be more safe in America or less safe?'" Benghazi appears to have answered that question.

Gohmert warned of similar inconsistency in actions being contemplated in Syria. The congressman revealed that "it looked like initially these were not al Qaeda backed rebels in Syria, and if we had acted quickly enough, and had someone who did not vote 'present,' we could have helped rebels who were not al Qaeda rebels." But the situation has degenerated, Gohmert lamented. "You have a tyrant leader on one hand, and you have radical Islamists – most of whom would like to destroy the United States as well – challenging him," he declared. "Where in the world is the interest in spilling American blood or treasure in getting into Syria?" he demanded.

Returning to Egypt, Gohmert described President Morsi's overreaches of power, the brutality towards the Copts and other Christians, and the drafting of an Islamic constitution in November 2012 that was boycotted by the Christians and liberal secularists alike. These led to the pro-democracy and freedom group Tamarud's petition for Morsi to step down and for new elections to be held. Ensuring that Egyptian revolution statistics will be enshrined in the congressional record, Gohmert told how that petition garnered over 22 million signatures and noted the 33 million protesters at one demonstration. He exclaimed, "There has never been a demonstration of as many as 20 million people! But the people of Egypt rose up. They recognized that radical Islamists in charge of their country were not a good thing, even if the leaders of our country in the Executive Branch could not see the obvious."

Gohmert also described the Egyptian people's anger that their revolution was being described as a "military coup" and that "they were furious at how CNN seemed to take the side of the Muslim Brotherhood over and over." Gohmert wanted the American people to know what really is happening in Egypt and its significance and so returned to the looming danger of a global Caliphate and how the "major, incredible, earthshaking revolution," of moderate Muslims, Coptic Christians, and liberal secularists who oppose radical Islam "rose up in greater numbers than has ever arisen anywhere in the world in the whole history of mankind." And in contrast to anything that U.S. foreign policy was doing, because of "these incredible, freedom-desiring Egyptians," said Gohmert, "this grand scheme of building a great Caliphate, a new Ottoman Empire, ran into a huge problem." The American people need to recognize, and be encouraged, not by the Arab winter that was originally called an Arab "Spring," but by "the true Spring that is now happening in Egypt as moderate Muslims and Coptic Christians and caring secularists have arisen together and said 'No!' to radical Islam," he said.

Gohmert displayed photographs showing the millions and millions of people who demonstrated for freedom. There were also examples of posters denouncing Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood, radical Islam, and, thanks to U.S. foreign policy, posters condemning not just CNN, but President Obama and U.S. Ambassador to Egypt, Anne Patterson, as Muslim Brotherhood supporters and labeling Patterson the "New Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood." Gohmert said that he did not support the signs nor think that they were correct, but that it was important to know what the people of Egypt's perceptions are about the United States government, based upon our actions. "Of course, the United States government does not support terrorism," he remonstrated, but "this nation, this Administration, has supported terrorists in Libya, in Egypt, and is now trying to get support for terrorists in Syria," so it is understandable that Egyptians would accuse us of supporting terrorism.

Issuing a call for the United States to return to a position of strength, Gohmert voiced concerns about the weakening of American national security, caused by the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists throughout the United States government. Using the Boston bombing as an example, Gohmert talked about how we were "given information that was not properly utilized because of the handcuffing that has gone on" within the FBI, the intelligence community, and the State Department, in the purging of training material. He quoted one intelligence officer who said that this action kept us "from seeing who our enemy is."

Gohmert also explained that a strong United States, supporting reformers that we can trust and hold accountable would be a help to Christians around the world who are facing increasing persecution, torture, and death. "This great nation, that arose based on Judeo-Christian ethics," stood "idly by," while there was still a vast American presence, said Gohmert, as the last Christian church in Afghanistan closed and as the last publicly-declared Jew left the country. Gohmert invoked the memory of John Quincy Adams arguing for the freedom of the Africans of the Amistad in the old Supreme Court chamber below them, and also invoked the "Judge of all judges" to hold America accountable "to stand with free nations and be friends of free nations."

"Some of us have a fear that if we do not do more to support truth and justice and the American ideals that this country was founded on, there will come a day of judgment," Gohmert confessed in his closing remarks. On national security and the U.S. government's obligation to support the Constitution and protect it from all enemies, foreign and domestic, Gohmert spoke of how before Morsi's arrest, a Muslim Brotherhood official in Egypt had boasted that there are "six Muslim Brotherhood members that are high level confidantes" in important advisory positions in this administration. He explained that the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States did not need to use violence because they were so effective at infiltrating the government.

Gohmert blasted the acquiescence to the Islamism in America that is threatening our national sovereignty. "The truth is that anyone . . . that wants to subvert our Constitution to Shariah Law is an enemy of the United States," he declared. These are the people "from whom we took an oath to protect our Constitution and this country," he continued. Gohmert contrasted the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists with the people of Egypt who, he said, had arisen and made clear that they did not want radical Islamists running their country, nor to see Christians persecuted. "Those are the kind of people this nation should befriend," Gohmert declared, "and not try to rush in and shore up those who would persecute, torture, and kill Christians, and Jews, and secularists who just want to be free."

Congressman Gohmert's message was not new information to many, but what was new, and quite earthshaking in its own way, was the fact that this speech was given by a U.S. representative on the floor of the House and before the C-SPAN cameras. The congressman's words have been a great encouragement to the Egyptian people. Walid Phares reported that Gohmert's speech has been widely viewed in Egypt. Phares also said that because of the speech, "a number of members of the European Parliament will be making stronger comments about Egypt and asking their governments to side with civil society and shift away from the Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood)." Just as the Egyptian people launched a freedom revolution, one House observer declared that "Gohmert has launched a moral revolution in U.S. foreign policy." But he needs all the help he can get from Americans who understand the truth of what he says because getting his colleagues in Congress to rise up and support that revolution may prove more difficult than mobilizing 33 million Egyptians to fight for freedom.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.


Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/faith-j-h-mcdonnell/rep-louie-gohmerts-challenge-to-america/

 



__._,_.___
 




   
__,_._,___


--
--
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.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

Re: 7 liberal reactions on Twitter to the birth of the royal baby (as I imagine them)

 I am about sick and tired of hearing about the Royal Baby! 
---
it embarrassing to Americans coo over 'royalty.'

how soon some forget.

On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 1:19:42 PM UTC-5, KeithInTampa wrote:
Some of those are pretty good.....Having said that,  I am about sick and tired of hearing about the Royal Baby! Martha McCallum can come on back home now.......

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Travis <baco...@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.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforu...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
--
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.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

Re: #IRS Chief Counsel Met with Obama 2 Days Before IRS Released Criteria to Target Tea Party Groups

http://spectator.org/archives/2013/07/23/who-is-the-savvy-william-wilki/print

On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 3:25:38 PM UTC-5, Travis wrote:




Sard posted: " Gateway Pundit reported: William Wilkins, IRS Chief Counsel and Obama political appointee, was a lobbyist for clients including the Swiss Bankers Association for 21 years. 50-year IRS tax specialist Carter Hull testified last week before Congress that t"

New post on therightplanet.com

#IRS Chief Counsel Met with Obama 2 Days Before IRS Released Criteria to Target Tea Party Groups

by Sard

Gateway Pundit reported: William Wilkins, IRS Chief Counsel and Obama political appointee, was a lobbyist for clients including the Swiss Bankers Association for 21 years. 50-year IRS tax specialist Carter Hull testified last week before Congress that the inappropriate screening of tea party-related applications reached the office of the IRS chief counsel William Wilkins. The […]

Read more of this post

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://www.therightplanet.com/2013/07/irs-chief-counsel-met-with-obama-2-days-before-irs-released-criteria-to-target-tea-party-groups/




--
--
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.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.