A Word to Environmentalists

The “extremists” among you openly call for the death of 1 to 6.4 billion human beings. The “moderates” among you openly call for the forced reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 90 percent within a few decades, which would serve to reduce energy use almost to the same extent. Such a severe reduction in energy use follows from the fact that there are no presently existing large-scale viable alternatives to fossil fuels other than atomic power, which is regarded by most members of your movement as a death ray and is opposed more vehemently than fossil fuels. Furthermore, the likelihood of ever finding and developing such alternatives will be greatly reduced by destroying the energy sources we do have and need to increase. So what your movement advocates is mass death or, at the very least, dreadful mass impoverishment whose outcome will be tens or hundreds of millions of unnecessary deaths and a life of misery for those who survive.

If your motivation in calling yourself an environmentalist is merely such things as that you like to see flowers bloom on open meadows, and love trees, whales, and polar bears, and the like, then you owe it to yourself to put as much intellectual and moral distance as possible between you and those who advocate mass impoverishment and mass death.

More here

Suspicion Confirmed II

In 1986 your humble correspondent happened to be aboard his sloop anchored in the harbor of Charlotte Amalie in the US Virgin Island of St Thomas when a Dutch submarine docked and the crew mustered on deck for shore leave. As a former member of the US Army I was appalled at the appearance of the crew which resembled nothing so much as the enkempt denizens on the streets of Nancy Pelosi's congressional district of Haight Ashbury in San Francisco. These sailors proceeded to disembark to enjoy shore liberty. I learned from a cruising colleague of Canadian citizenship and Dutch descent that the members of the Dutch military are all unionized (do they vote on whether to defend the Netherlands from attack?).
I therefore was able to put the following news item in perspective:

In the above photo taken Saturday, April 18, 2009, released by Dutch defense ministry on April 21, 2009, Dutch marines board a fishing boat in the Gulf of Aden and free two dozen Yemenis from the clutches of nine pirates. They seized and destroyed AK-47 assault rifles and a rocket launcher but then put the pirates back in their skiff and set them free. (AP Photo/ Defense Ministry Netherlands/) (AP / April 18, 2009)

Suspicion Confirmed?

The real (UNSPUN) story of the MESSIAH'S Decision Making on the hostage US skipper.

Subject: AH, now it comes out
Having spoken to some SEAL pals here in Virginia Beach yesterday and asking why this thing dragged out for 4 days, I got the following:

1. BHO wouldn't authorize the DEVGRU/NSWC SEAL teams to the scene for 36 hours going against OSC (on scene commander) recommendation.
2. Once they arrived, BHO imposed restrictions on their ROE that they couldn't do anything unless the hostage's life was in "imminent" danger
3. The first time the hostage jumped, the SEALS had the raggies all sighted in, but could not fire due to ROE restriction
4. When the navy RIB came under fire as it approached with supplies, no fire was returned due to ROE restrictions. As the raggies were shooting at the RIB, they were exposed and the SEALS had them all dialed in.
5. BHO specifically denied two rescue plans developed by the Bainbridge CPN and SEAL teams
6. Bainbridge CPN and SEAL team CDR finally decide they have the OpArea and OSC authority to solely determine risk to hostage. 4 hours later, 3 dead raggies
7. BHO immediately claims credit for his "daring and decisive" behaviour. As usual with him, it's BS.

So per our last email thread, I'm downgrading Oohbaby's performace to D-. Only reason it's not an F is that the hostage survived.

Read the following accurate account.

Philips’ first leap into the warm, dark water of the Indian Ocean hadn’t worked out as well. With the
Bainbridge in range and a rescue by his country’s Navy possible, Philips threw himself off of his
lifeboat prison, enabling Navy shooters onboard the destroyer a clear shot at his captors — and none
was taken.

The guidance from National Command Authority — the president of the United States,
Barack Obama — had been clear: a peaceful solution was the only acceptable outcome to this standoff
unless the hostage’s life was in clear, extreme danger.

The next day, a small Navy boat approaching the floating raft was fired on by the Somali pirates — and
again no fire was returned and no pirates killed. This was again due to the cautious stance assumed by
Navy personnel thanks to the combination of a lack of clear guidance from Washington and a mandate
from the commander in chief’s staff not to act until Obama, a man with no background of dealing with
such issues and no track record of decisiveness, decided that any outcome other than a “peaceful
solution” would be acceptable.

After taking fire from the Somali kidnappers again Saturday night, the onscenecommander decided
he’d had enough.

Keeping his authority to act in the case of a clear and present danger to the hostage’s
life and having heard nothing from Washington since yet another request to mount a rescue operation
had been denied the day before, the Navy officer — unnamed in all media reports to date — decided
the AK47 one captor had leveled at Philips’ back was a threat to the hostage’s life and ordered the
NSWC team to take their shots.

Three rounds downrange later, all three brigands became enemy KIA and Philips was safe.

There is upside, downside, and spinside to the series of events over the last week that culminated in
yesterday’s dramatic rescue of an American hostage.

Almost immediately following word of the rescue, the Obama administration and its supporters claimed
victory against pirates in the Indian Ocean and [1] declared that the dramatic end to the standoff put
paid to questions of the inexperienced president’s toughness and decisiveness.

Despite the Obama administration’s (and its sycophants’) attempt to spin yesterday’s success as a result
of bold, decisive leadership by the inexperienced president, the reality is nothing of the sort.
What should have been a standoff lasting only hours — as long as it took the USS Bainbridge and its
team of NSWC operators to steam to the location — became an embarrassing four day and counting
standoff between a ragtag handful of criminals with rifles and a U.S. Navy warship.

Source

Hat tip: John Ray

I'm From the (Somali) Government and am Here to Help

Several leftist/racist spokespersons and Al Sharpton (redundancy alert) have suggested that the Somali pirates should to be considered "voluntary coast guard" due to the practice of shipping companies "dumping toxic waste in Somali coastal waters " in the absence of a functioning central government in that "country". This assertion is posited in the absence of ANY empirical evidence for such preposterous allegations.

Interviews with actual pirates affirm that their motives are however strictly pecuniary. Also, when viewing the Canadian produced video linked above, bear in mind that due to ocean current patterns in the Indian Ocean, any piece of flotsam finding its way into the sea in any area west of Sumatra has a good chance of finding its way onto the beaches of East Africa including Puntland and Southern Somalia.

Such logic is however unlikely to intrude on the fantasy world of the latter day leftists and racists whose object is to condemn any and all activities associated with Western culture.

A (Modest?) Proposal

As is often the case, political considerations generally outweigh logic or reason in addressing what would ordinarily appear as simple and straightforward problems in the real world. As an example, the idea never occurs to our rulers when faced with criminal behavior to preclude the need for cost ineffective responses to criminal behavior by nipping the problem in the bud.

A case in point would be the recent resurgence of piracy in the Gulf of Aden and the Somali coast of the Indian Ocean. The coastal population of Somalia which at present has no effective government whose writ extends beyond the city limits of Mogadishu has discovered the lucre available to adventurous and enterprising gentlemen in small craft willing to invest in automatic small arms and readily available rocket propelled grenade launchers for the purpose of wreaking havoc on the unarmed merchant fleets of the world by seizing and holding for ransom peaceful merchant vessels and their crews.

The policy heretofore utilized by the shippers has been to pay the demanded ransoms to obtain the release of the vessels and personnel apparently ignoring the logic that any behavior which is rewarded will tend to increase exponentially. These decisions are also influenced by the political policies of various nations who prohibit the entrance of commercial vessels into their harbors vessels which have defensive weaponry on board. This situation is reenforced by insuring companies which will not insure vessels which sail with defensive armament.

As we have witnessed the increase in piracy recently due to the easy lucre engendered by the above mentioned policies, a re evaluation of such policies is obviously appropriate. Presently, elements of a dozen navies are engaged in the suppression of piracy in the western Indian ocean at considerable expense of treasure in a world economy suffering from the evaporation of over 50 trillion dollars of wealth over recent history.

Your humble writer is thus prepared to place before your consideration a proposal which he posits will address the problem in a cost effective and expeditious manner.

Every vessel entering the Gulf of Aden and the western Indian Ocean shall be equipped with the following: one 20mm chain gun with adequate ammunition on the highest point of the superstructure. This weapon to be serviced by one squad (9 persons) of trained private security personnel armed with appropriate small arms. The 9 man squad is adequate to provide 24-7 duty for the weapon system. All craft constituting a security threat to the vessel will be dealt with by the appropriate measures and no rescue operations will be initiated for surviving attackers.

You, dear readers are left with the necessary computation of the costs of these measures as opposed to the existing policy of deploying naval battle groups of a dozen nations and providing monetary rewards to these enterprising bandits.

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

As if by Magic

What a relief! We can all relax. No more anxiety over insolvent banks failing. It's all fixed now.

Friday, April third was the day that the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) announced the modification of its rules for assessing the value of assets held as collateral by financial institutions. Wall Street reacted to the good news by continuing its rally.

Here's the way it works: With the slump in real estate sales at inflated bubble prices, the sellers were forced to accept lower offers in order to move these "assets". In many cases the properties could not be sold for prices at or above the balances owed on them to the banks. The situation resulted in borrowers owing more on their mortgages than they could sell their homes for. As a result properties recently "valued" at $500,000.00 are now worth $300,000.00 and falling daily. Banks that had loaned $495,000.00+ on such properties were forced under the old rules (mark to market) to assign the true market value on their balance sheets causing them to be insolvent.

Under the new rules (issued two days subsequent to All Fools Day) the banks will be allowed to carry these mortgages on their balance sheets at their original (inflated) values and voilá, the problems are solved due to political pressure.

It is important to note that the Financial Accounting Standards Board made their rule modifications only after intense pressure had been applied by Washington and Wall Street....The banks and the government have argued that the assets should be valued based solely on current cash flow. Most mortgages, after all, are not delinquent. Therefore, a few bad apples should not spoil the whole cart, and those that are not yet delinquent should be valued at par. This method assumes we have no ability to look into the future and make assumptions about what is likely to happen, which is presumably what the market is already doing by valuing the assets lower than the banks wish.

Pay no attention to the fact that foreclosures are accelerating exponentially and the foreclosed properties are only being liquidated at "fire sale" prices with the slack being taken up with freshly printed and borrowed bailout money.

The Marxist Messiah and his Keynesian economic advisors continue to kick the day of reckoning down the road for our grandchildren to pay for while assuring us the we can borrow, print and spend our way out of this debt crisis by creating trillions of dollars out of thin air and borrowing the rest from the Chinese.

Welcome to Zimbabwe lite.

The above pictured banknote as of this posting is roughly equivalent to 10 grams of gold.

A Glimmer of Hope?

Just when one begins to despair that any semblance of sanity can be salvaged from the wreckage of western sociopolitical culture there emerges a voice which exhorts a return to reason and logic. Oddly enough, such a voice can be heard emitting from one of the unlikeliest of sources; the European Parliament. The following video appears to have gone viral, as well it should. The indictment delivered by Daniel Hannan against the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is equally applicable concerning the two most recent occupants of the White House.



Hat tip: Larrey Anderson

cross posted at: Eternity Road

Ayn Rand Revisited

Occasionally one runs across a jewel of wisdom so precious that it seems to have been sequestered from exposure to mere mortals. The late Milton Friedman is a source of several such examples. My favorite pearl produced by the master is the following clip from an interview of him by Phil Donahue in 1979.

If there is truth to the ancient Chinese cliche that a picture is worth a thousand words then the series of frames presented below with the accompanying dialog is definitely worth several million.

It is so devastatingly effective in demolishing one of the most sacred shibboleths of modern leftism that it needs to be resurrected and considered in these times of the ascendancy of the Marxist messiah.



H/T Patrick Joubert Conlon

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!!

The following is a reposting from the web site of the College Republicans of Arizona State University of 03 February 2009. Your humble scribbler is categorizing it under "gun control" for reasons which should become obvious to his readers. The date of the incident, 19 April 1775 is important to ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ as it is not only the anniversary of his birth but the opening shots of the American Revolution which was triggered by an effort of King George III to disarm his subjects in the American colonies.

In the early morning hours of April 19th, 1775, word spread like wildfire that the British Army had departed Boston, and was preparing to march on the city of Concord. A small contingent of average, run of the mill Americans chose to take a stand in Lexington, Massachusetts. With one shot, the course of American history was forever altered. That single ball of lead sparked a revolution, creating our great country, which has been a beacon of freedom and prosperity for over two centuries. However, why was this shot fired? The answer is simple: gun control.

The reason why the British military was ordered to Concord was to capture and destroy weapons, which they feared would be used to launch a revolution. Well, they were right. If it weren’t for the fact that the colonists owned and were proficient in the use of firearms, it is doubtful that the revolution would have taken place at all.

Our founding fathers, in their infinite wisdom, recognized this fact. With the adoption of our constitution, they knew that the concept of a federal government was new and untested. It was unknown whether our republic would blossom into the world’s first truly free society, or if we would end up with yet another oppressive government. For this reason, the bill of rights was amended into the constitution, to further clarify what the federal government can and cannot do.

In terms of personal liberty, it is widely recognized that the first amendment is by far the most important. It firmly establishes that Americans have the right to say what they think, print what they want, and practice whatever religion they wish to without fear of persecution. These are fundamental freedoms which every American cherishes. However, what Americans today seem to have forgotten, is that this document is just that, a document. It is an old piece of parchment. Words printed on a piece of paper are worthless if they are not heeded by the federal government. [or an informed citizenry] And, because the founding fathers recognized this fact, they chose to preserve the power of the average American through the second amendment, the right to keep and bear arms.

Our government was purposely created with a system of checks and balances. Congress has two separate houses, so that both must agree for a bill to be sent to the President. The President has the power to sign or veto bills, and the Supreme Court has the power to review laws to determine constitutionality. However, in the event that our elaborate system of checks and balances were to fail, we have one last check on the power of the government; private ownership of firearms. It was through the force of arms that we became free in the first place, and our founding fathers chose specifically to recognize this freedom, in the event that tyranny and oppression took hold in our government.

Now, I don’t mean to sound like I advocate the use of the second amendment in this way; that couldn’t be father from the truth. However, when we look at countries such as the Soviet Union, China and Nazi Germany, we can clearly see how gun control has historically been used to subdue populations before genocide takes place.

After all, when the Nazis first took power of Germany in 1933, the Jewish population was free. Slowly over time, Jewish freedoms were eroded away. It started with hostile propaganda, which was designed to turn the people of Germany against the Jews. After blaming the Jews for the current economic crisis, the Nazis passed laws requiring them to wear armbands to segregate them. After continued discrimination by both the government and the people of Germany, they were finally relocated to ghettos and from there sent to concentration camps such as Auschwitz and Dachau.

In this story though is one very significant act of resistance. In an event known as the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, the importance of the second amendment becomes clear. When the Nazi Regime wanted to transport the last of the Warsaw Ghetto Jews to Treblinka, a large number of Jews rose up in a rebellion which lasted from January 18th to May 16th, 1943.

During this rebellion, the Jews used any weapon they could find or improvise to halt the German advance. Despite the fact that they faced the might of the German Army with pistols and molotov cocktails, they were able to successfully hold out for five months. This even was the only large scale uprising launched by the Jews during the holocaust.

Now, imagine that Germany had the same gun culture as the Unite States during World War II. If every German Jew possessed a shotgun or handgun, I would imagine that the holocaust may have turned out different. Even if the SS had been successful in rounding up people for ethnic cleansing, the process for doing so would have been extremely costly.

The Second Amendment has also had a significant role in how foreign powers view us. When Admiral Yamamoto, the man who planned the Pearl Harbor attacks was asked about the feasibility of an invasion of the continental US, his reply was. “You cannot invade the mainland of the United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.”

Never before in history has a country been designed with such a failsafe system of government. Our constitution’s checks and balances, along with the Second Amendment, truly is an ingenious way of running a country.

Unfortunately, we have seen our rights erode slowly over time. At one point in our history, there was no gun control in any form whatsoever. In fact, the first significant form of national gun control was the National Firearms Act of 1934. This required national registration of machine guns and short barreled rifles and shotguns. It also imposed a $200 transfer tax when buying such a weapon.

Next came the Gun Control Act of 1968. Within this act, the government required the licensing of gun dealers, and made it illegal to send firearms in the mail unless it was from gun-dealer to gun-dealer. It also included a “sporting-purpose” clause to heavily regulate the importation of military-style firearms.

After that came the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, which changed the law to allow people to mail order ammunition without a gun dealer. Unfortunately, they added an amendment at the last minute to make the manufacture of machine guns illegal.

Up until this point, no one really cared. However, with the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, gun owners finally opened their eyes to the impending erosion of the Second Amendment. In this act, many firearms in common use were banned by name. Most were banned based upon their “scary looks.” Luckily this act of gun control had an expiration date and was allowed to expire. Now that Barack Obama is preparing to take his place as our President, the media has already started its game of writing emotional articles about how AK47s are “flooding the streets.”

The next time liberal politicians propose to ban military-style firearms under the guise of increasing security, I would like to bear in mind a quote from Benjamin Franklin, “Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Is an idle promise of temporary security really worth the erosion of our second amendment rights? I guess that is up to the voters and the Supreme Court. However, I am willing to take that risk in order to preserve my right to defend myself and the freedoms I cherish.

ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ must disagree with the second to last sentence of the quote. It is up to individual free citizens to determine the preservation of the natural right of self defense.

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Never Let a Severe Crisis Go to Waste

Recently we have noted a surfeit of discussions of various scenarios involving self defense and "protection". It has also been observed that one of the consequences of the recent national plebiscite has been a boost in the sale of firearms and related paraphernalia whilst private enterprise along with the remainder of our liberties seem to be in free fall. To what extent however, is the private acquisition of the means of self defense merely an exercise in "talking the talk" rather than "walking the walk"?

This writer is of the opinion that the most important factor when considering taking individual responsibility for defending ones self, family and property is mindset; and for the last two generations government education has systematically attempted to quash the traditional view that self defense is a natural right. All the defensive armament available is useless unless one is prepared to utilize it in extremis.

The conventional wisdom permeating our society that it is the responsibility of the state through one of its agencies to protect us from violent criminal threats to life and limb could not be further from the reality. The truth of the concept can be read here and here that the government has no obligation to defend an individual from the threat to life or limb. Also to be considered is the fact that the greatest threat to liberty since 1865 has been the Federal Government itself. In spite of these facts :

...[T]he state and its myriad civilian supporters persist in the belief the individual in society should be disarmed, stating the police are there, should anyone need protection.

Today’s economic problems have revealed the true purpose of most law enforcement personnel in our country: revenue collection . Apprehending killers, rapists and robbers does not contribute to the coffers of law enforcement and their governing bodies; they are, in fact, costly to the agency involved. Unconstitutional law enforcement checkpoints, where a great majority of DUI citations, license, registration, and insurance violations are issued, are vital to the state in the collection of revenue. In today’s economic times, many departments have detailed officers from personal crime assignments to activities that are revenue producing. This takes the law enforcement emphasis away from protecting citizens. To the police, manning checkpoints or speed traps is much more important than answering a prowler call or a call concerning a restraining order’s enforcement.

During times of severe economic collapse and the concomitant likelihood of brigandage, it is logical to conceive of relying on individual self defense. On the other hand, what is the appropriate response to the scenario where agents of governmental authority are sent out to collect the means of self defense from the citizenry during times of emergency and martial law as was the case in New Orleans during the aftermath of hurricane Katrina? If, dear reader, you are prepared to dismiss such a possibility by citing articles and clauses in the Constitution and provisions of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 I suggest that you consider returning to the real world of the 21st century.

The issue of whether U.S. troops would be prepared to round-up, disarm and if necessary shoot Americans who disobeyed orders during a state of martial law is a question that military chiefs have been attempting to answer for at least 15 years.

There is, however at least one ray of hope, and you will not be made aware of it in the traditional media. If any of you dear readers are members of the military or law enforcement, I urge you to become acquainted with the web site of the Oath Keepers who present a list of "orders" which they will not obey.

Officers in the service of the United States are bound by the following oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States:

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

The usual governmental dodge of course will be applied to your demurrer regarding the demand (following a knock on your door) ordering the surrender of your weapons; you will be declared a "terrorist" and dealt with accordingly.


ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

cross posted at: Eternity Road

Cultural Metamorphisis

It is unclear how long YouTube will allow this video to be viewed before removing it using the usual "violation of terms of use" cop out . In any event, here it is.



The alliance between socialist/leftist political parties and the multiculturalists continues to coalesce. It remains to be seen if the the membership surge in conservative parties such as the Swedish Democrats, the BNP (British National Party) and the PVV (Freedom Party) in the Netherlands is too little and too late to counter the descent of those countries into a multicultural hell.

As is the case here in the US, the mainstream media with the tacit cooperation of the ruling politicians pursue a policy of vilification and marginalization of any grassroots movement to retain traditional cultural identity. The anti dhimmi groups are generally portrayed as "fascist" or "far right wing".

With the ubiquitous alternative media presence it becomes increasingly difficult for the MSM to maintain their monopoly on the dissemination of information hence the agitation for enacting the "Fairness Doctrine" and governmental control of the internet.

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

"When in the Course of Human Events..." UPDATED

One of the concepts learned in most introductory courses on government (more recently known as political science) is the theory of the "social contract" . The most famous of the theoreticians positing this idea are Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The common thread contained in the writings of these thinkers is the implication that people give up some of their natural rights to a collective or other authority such as a prince or chieftain in order to achieve social order.

In order for a contract to continue in force the parties to it must abide by its terms. Otherwise there is a breach of said contract. For example, if a citizen fails to abide by the laws of his government it is generally conceded to be just for that government to visit retribution on him. The next question one could ask is; what is to be done in the instance where the central authority to which the citizens have surrendered their rights fails or is unable to fulfill its obligations? In answering this question, considerable blood has been spilled over the course of human history. In the case of the United States the issue was joined in 1776 and provisionally resolved by the Treaty of Paris in 1783.

Unhappily, today we are witnessing the disintegration of western culture as it has heretofore been defined. This view is reinforced by events recorded in the video embedded below recently transpiring in the Swedish city of Malmö where the "Dialog Police" are having their go at a resolution. These issues will be temporarily resolved as history unfolds. Stay tuned.



For now one would be well advised to keep his/her powder dry.

Update: The YouTube video has been taken down. The Swedish edition is HERE.

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

cross posted at: Eternity Road

Depressions for Dummies

The depression financial crisis explained in simple
terms.

Heidi is the proprietor of a bar in Berlin. In
order to increase sales, she decides to allow her loyal
customers - most of whom are unemployed alcoholics - to
drink now but pay later. She keeps track of the drinks
consumed on a ledger (thereby granting the customers loans).

Word gets around and as a result increasing
numbers of customers flood into Heidi's bar.

Taking advantage of her customers' freedom
from immediate payment constraints, Heidi increases her
prices for wine and beer, the most-consumed beverages. Her
sales volume increases massively.

A young and dynamic customer service consultant
at the local bank recognizes these customer debts as
valuable future assets and increases Heidi's borrowing
limit.

He sees no reason for undue concern since he
has the debts of the alcoholics as collateral.

At the bank's corporate headquarters,
expert bankers transform these customer assets into
DRINKBONDS, ALKBONDS and PUKEBONDS. These securities are
then traded on markets worldwide. No one really understands
what these abbreviations mean and how the securities are
guaranteed. Nevertheless, as their prices continuously
climb, the securities become top-selling items.

One day, although the prices are still
climbing, a risk manager of the bank, (subsequently of
course fired due his negativity), decides that slowly the
time has come to demand payment of the debts incurred by the
drinkers at Heidi's bar.

However they cannot pay back the debts.

Heidi cannot fulfill her loan obligations and
claims bankruptcy.

DRINKBONDS and ALKBONDS drop in price by 95 %.
PUKEBONDS perform better, stabilizing in price after
dropping by 80 %.

The suppliers of Heidi's bar, having
granted her generous payment due dates and having invested
in the securities are faced with a new situation. Her wine
supplier claims bankruptcy, her beer supplier is taken over
by a competitor.

The bank is saved by the Government following
dramatic round-the-clock consultations by leaders from the
governing political parties.

The funds required for this purpose are
obtained by a tax levied on the non-drinkers.

Finally an explanation I understand.

h/t Neal Boortz

We Can Only Wish

click on graphic to enlarge


h/t Thomas Lifson and Richard Baehr

The New Era

It is a pity that so little of history is taught these days in the government schools. In lieu of learning the value of recycling, living the "green" lifestyle and the wonders of diversity our young citizens could perhaps be acquiring the insight and tools necessary to compare the similarity of todays events with what has previously transpired, thus possibly avoiding the inevitable unpleasantness. Our entire society reminds me of nothing so much as the teenager who has just lost his virginity and believes he is the discoverer of sex.

We live today in an era not unlike the disintegration of the Roman Empire. Hollywood notwithstanding, there were many areas within the empire where the barbarians were welcomed by the population as a blessed deliverance from the oppressive taxation of the emperor and his Curiales (tax collectors). By the early 4th century it was common practice for middle class artisans and small farmers to abandon their shops and small holdings to avoid the oppressive indictio and flee to the countryside to join the serfs who tilled the soil.

A haunting commentary by a contemporary of the Emperor Constantine I, Zosimus, writes the following which is equally applicable to our own government:

"Constantine not only continued to waste the revenue of the Empire in useless expenses, and in presents to mean and worthless persons, but oppressed those who paid the tributes, and enriched those who were useless to the State. For he mistook prodigality for magnificence."

Sadly, it is likely those lessons will have to be relearned before any improvement upon our current path will occur.

Meanwhile, as most historians are aware, the Western Roman Empire's "official" end was on 4 September 476 AD with the accession to the Imperial throne of the German, Odoacer. Perhaps future historians will mark the end of our Republic as 20 January 2009 with the inauguration of the Kenyan Barak Hussein Obama. These are indeed "interesting times".

Theft!!

It was difficult selecting a title for this posting. The reason for the ultimate designation as "Theft" is threefold:
1. The video of Pat Condell was stolen from THIS website.
2. The traditional right to freedom of expression in Western culture is being stolen by seventh century barbarians with the full cooperation of leftist politicians.
3. I hope every reader of this posting who has an internet presence steals it and rebroadcasts it.

Additionally, the short documentary at the center of this whole flap is available HERE.

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!!!

Enjoy Your Pain

The impact of the current global financial and economic tsunami is calling into question the policies advocated by the warmistas and their prophet Al Gore as well as his enabling high priest James Hansen. The data released recently by one source estimates the recent loss to the wealth of each US family at 20% and the mood of the electorate is not conducive to "business as usual". This is a mere pittance compared to the negative impact to be experienced if the policies engendered by adherence to a target of reducing carbon emissions to 80% of those of 1990 by the year 2050 are pursued.

The pseudo science cited by the warmistas rests on a series of assumptions which have been conjured out of thin air such as: "the social costs of carbon is the damage done by emitting an additional unit (ton) of carbon dioxide into the environment". Never mind asking the embarrassing questions concerning the objective (scientific) metrics of such an assumption. The mere fact that arcane graphs and tables are presented should be sufficient to intimidate any intellectually challenged lay person or politician considering skepticism of such nonsense.

The political/economic impact of adopting the warmista agenda on the state level can best be illustrated by the case of the state of California which signed on to the green/warmista agenda in 2006 and is currently experiencing an unemployment rate substantially above the national average. With additional regulations and tax increases intended to address the multi billion dollar budgetary shortfall as well as the greenie agenda scheduled to be kicking in during 2009, the exodus of businesses and productive residents to neighboring states is accelerating exponentially. This reminds your humble scribbler of one of the few pearls of wisdom offered up by a professor of political science many years ago in a California University of all places: "When the water reaches the upper decks; follow the rats".

The just enacted mega pork stimulus package proposes, through sleight-of-hand plus smoke and mirrors, ostensibly to avoid the effects of this depression (let's call it what it is) by prescribing a mega dose of what initially caused the event i.e. easy fiat money and easy credit is likely to to result in just the opposite.

As bad as the results of this "remedy" will be, there is at least an up side and that is that the population will likely not be as ready to accept a further descent into a pre industrial society engendered by the unquestioning adoption of the warmista agenda.

Enjoy your pain. The White House Marxist Messiah will be doing his best to extend it.

Scapegoats

Health, child protection, fighting poverty, aiding travellers, community, helping mothers: These are the tasks of the National Socialist People's Charity. Become a member!

Todays collectivists who are fond of disparaging Laissez Faire Capitalism which they fault for the current economic/financial pass to which we have come are inadvertently cheer leading for the system which they regularly accuse conservatives of advocating: fascism. Our so called "mixed economy" which describes the current situation in the US is unadulterated fascism and is defined as an economic system nominally owned by private persons but in fact controlled and regulated by governmental authority.

Today’s US Economic System Is A “Mixed [Fascist] Economy,” Not Laissez-Faire Capitalism.

And even if all of the facts as presented [by] those who would blame "capitalism" were absolutely true, it would not imply any reason whatever to condemn capitalism. Capitalism is a system in which absurd, self-destructive behavior severely punishes whoever is guilty of it. Such people suffer losses, go bankrupt, and lose their ability to have significant further economic influence. Their example then serves as a lesson to others to avoid such behavior.

However, we are very far from having capitalism today, certainly not capitalism in its logically consistent form of laissez-faire capitalism. What we have today is a “mixed economy,” that is, a severely hampered, distorted form of capitalism. In such a system, such behavior can continue, thanks to government subsidies, grants of monopoly privilege and suppression of competition, and now by means of government “bailouts.”

A mixed economy is an economy which remains capitalistic in its basic structure, but in which the government extensively intervenes with the initiation of physical force to compel actions that are against the interest of individuals and/or to prohibit actions that are in the interest of individuals. For example, today it compels people to pay an income tax, which is against their interest but which they pay in order to stay out of jail. It also prohibits them from engaging in various business mergers or paying wages below a certain amount, things which it would be to their interest to do but now do not, because they wish to avoid being fined or imprisoned. (In my recent article “The Myth that Laissez Faire Is Responsible for Our Financial Crisis,” I present an extensive description of the extent of government intervention.)...

In a mixed [fascist] economy, every significant-sized business must fear what the government can do to it. It needs protection, in the form of political connections. It secures these through appointing former government officials to its board of directors, paying such officials lavish consulting fees, and giving lavish campaign contributions to candidates for public office. In these ways it buys the protection it needs. More

Make no mistake; the politicians who espouse solutions to the problems which they themselves are responsible for and which involve "more of the same" are leading their constituents down the primrose path to National Socialism. Indeed, Rahm Emanuel's cliche "Never let a serious crisis go to waste" is exactly how the National Socialists came to power in Germany in 1933.

"Try It. You'll Like It!"

Graphic courtesy of Ol' Remus

Just when one believes he has "heard it all", along come our rulers in Oz on the Potomac to surpass any of the nonsense portrayed by Lewis Carroll in "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland". It would all be hilarious were the cretins not dead serious. For example, there are two schemes seriously being considered as palliatives to avoid not only the self destruction of the US automotive industry and the economy but planetary devastation due to global warming:

"Several ideas are on the table, but two of them are really making the [auto] industry pay attention. One plan is to make new car costs tax deductible. The other is to give rebates to Americans with old cars so they can better afford to buy new ones, a program otherwise known as "cash for clunkers."

You can't make this stuff up.

In other words: "Are You in Debt, Hurt by the Economy, or Have You Lost Your Job? Good, Then Buy a New Car and Crush Your Old One." We would be justified in dismissing such idiotic nonsense for what it is, except for similar hare brained schemes having been credited with ending the depression of 1930 1941:

"During the Great Depression of the 1930s, agricultural price support programs led to vast amounts of food being deliberately destroyed at a time when malnutrition was a serious problem in the United States and hunger marches were taking place in cities across the country. For example, the federal government bought 6 million hogs in 1933 alone and destroyed them. Huge amounts of farm produce were plowed under, in order to keep it off the market and maintain prices at the officially fixed level, and vast amounts of milk were poured down the sewers for the same reason. Meanwhile, many American children were suffering from diseases caused by malnutrition."
Thomas Sowell, Basic Economics (3rd Edition, Basic Books, 2007), p. 56.

Ideas proposed by politicians whose primary interest is short term "fixes" designed to win reelection, do not even compare favorably with the classic economic plan that in order to generate prosperity we must all take in our neighbor's laundry. We are however, likely to be victimized by such outrages until the effects on the citizenry of "free and compulsory" public indoctrination education are eliminated. Meanwhile, ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ for one, will not be holding his breath.

h/t: The LRC blog

Pat Condell on Geert Wilders