Friday, November 30, 2012

Spielberg’s Upside-Down History: The Myth of Lincoln and the Thirteenth Amendment



by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
November 30, 2012

"Armies of scholars, meticulously investigating every aspect of [Lincoln’s] life, have failed to find a single act of racial bigotry on his part."

~ Doris Kearns-Goodwin, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, p. 207.

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people . . . . I as much as any man am in favor of the superior position assigned to the white race."

~ Abraham Lincoln, First Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Ottawa, Illinois, Sept. 18, 1858, in The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln vol.3, pp. 145-146.

Steven Spielberg’s new movie, Lincoln, is said to be based on several chapters of the book Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns-Goodwin, who was a consultant to Spielberg. The main theme of the movie is how clever, manipulative, conniving, scheming, lying, and underhanded Lincoln supposedly was in using his "political skills" to get the Thirteenth Amendment that legally ended slavery through the U.S. House of Representatives in the last months of his life. This entire story is what Lerone Bennett, Jr. the longtime executive editor of Ebony magazine and author of Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream, calls a "pleasant fiction." It never happened.

It never happened according to the foremost authority on Lincoln among mainstream Lincoln scholars, Harvard University Professor David H. Donald, the recipient of several Pulitzer prizes for his historical writings, including a biography of Lincoln. David Donald is the preeminent Lincoln scholar of our time who began writing award-winning books on the subject in the early 1960s. On page 545 of his magnus opus, Lincoln, Donald notes that Lincoln did discuss the Thirteenth Amendment with two members of Congress – James M. Ashley of Ohio and James S. Rollins of Missouri. But if he used "means of persuading congressmen to vote for the Thirteeth Amendment," the theme of the Spielberg movie, "his actions are not recorded. Conclusions about the President’s role rested on gossip . . ."

Moreover, there is not a shred of evidence that even one Democratic member of Congress changed his vote on the Thirteenth Amendment (which had previously been defeated) because of Lincoln’s actions. Donald documents that Lincoln was told that some New Jersey Democrats could possibly be persuaded to vote for the amendment "if he could persuade [Senator] Charles Sumner to drop a bill to regulate the Camden & Amboy [New Jersey] Railroad, but he declined to intervene" (emphasis added). "One New Jersey Democrat," writes David Donald, "well known as a lobbyist for the Camden & Amboy, who had voted against the amendment in July, did abstain in the final vote, but it cannot be proved that Lincoln influenced his change" (emphasis added). Thus, according to the foremost authority on Lincoln, there is no evidence at all that Lincoln influenced even a single vote in the U.S. House of Representatives, in complete contradiction of the writings of the confessed plagiarist Doris Kearns-Goodwin and Steven Spielberg’s movie (See my review of Goodwin’s book, entitled "A Plagiarist’s Contribution to Lincoln Idolatry").

Lincoln’s First Thirteenth Amendment Gambit

There is no evidence that Lincoln provided any significant assistance in the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment in the House of Representatives in 1865, but there is evidence of his effectiveness in getting an earlier Thirteenth Amendment through the House and the Senate in 1861. This proposed amendment was known as the "Corwin Amendment," named after Ohio Republican Congressman Thomas Corwin. It had passed both the Republican-controlled House and the Republican-dominated U.S. Senate on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln’s inauguration, and was sent to the states for ratification by Lincoln himself.

The Corwin Amendment would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with Southern slavery. It read as follows:

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State,, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

"Person held to service" is how the Constitutional Convention referred to slaves, and "domestic institutions" referred to slavery. Lincoln announced to the world that he endorsed the Corwin Amendment in his first inaugural address:

"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution – which amendment, however, I have not seen – has passed Congress to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service . . . . [H]olding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable" (emphasis added).

Believing that slavery was already constitutional, Lincoln had "no objection" to enshrining it explicitly in the text of the U.S. Constitution on the day that he took office. He then sent a letter to the governor of each state transmitting the approved amendment for what he hoped would be ratification and noting that his predecessor, President James Buchanan, had also endorsed it.

Lincoln played a much larger role in getting this first Thirteenth Amendment through Congress than merely endorsing it in his first inaugural address and in his letter to the governors. Even Doris Kearns-Goodwin knows this! On page 296 of Team of Rivals she explained how it was Lincoln who, after being elected but before the inauguration, instructed New York Senator William Seward, who would become his secretary of state, to get the amendment through the U.S. Senate. He also instructed Seward to get a federal law passed that would repeal the personal liberty laws in some of the Northern states that were used by those states to nullify the federal Fugitive Slave Act, which Lincoln strongly supported. (The Fugitive Slave Act forced Northerners to hunt down runaway slaves and return them to their owners).

As Goodwin writes: "He [Lincoln] instructed Seward to introduce these proposals in the Senate Committee of Thirteen without indicating they issued from Springfield [Illinois]. The first resolved that ‘the Constitution should never be altered so as to authorize Congress to abolish or interfere with slavery in the states.’" The second proposal was that "All state personal liberty laws in opposition to the Fugitive Slave Law be repealed."

So, go and see Spielberg’s Lincoln movie if you must, but keep in mind that it is just another left-wing Hollywood fantasy.

Thursday, November 29, 2012

Dipshit Bill O'Reilly: Christianity is Not A Religion



"War On" Christmas is back in full swing in 2012. It begins with O' Reilly claiming that Christianity is not a religion, but a philosophy

by Larry Simons
November 29, 2012

Last night on The O' Reilly Factor, Billo starts off a segment by claiming there is a "Christmas controversy". What Billo fails to mention is that this "controversy" is only happening in one place....inside his own head. O' Reilly brings on the President of the American Atheists, David Silverman, to discuss why atheists appear to be behind a crusade to take down public Christmas displays.

Billo begins by asking why Silverman and his group are "messing around" with Christmas. Silverman explains [in the first of many attempts to get it through Billo's head] that they are simply trying to prevent the government from preferring one religion over another.

Billo, in his ever-present insanity, asks Silverman, "What religion is involved with Christmas?" Silverman explains, "Christianity" [At this point, a collective 'duh-duhhhh' can be heard across the country].

BIllo then speaks one of the biggest lies of his 16-year Fox News career, "That's not a religion, that's a philosophy." After I was done laughing at Billo's immense stupidity, I went to the computer and performed a task that was as easy as finding out the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776 or that the Titanic sank in 1912: I found that Christianity is indeed a religion.

Any website you look up or dictionary you browse will describe Christianity as a religion. The site religionfacts.com says this, "Christianity was founded in the early 1st century AD, with the teaching, miracles, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Today it is the largest religion in the world, with around 2 billion followers." This is just one of a never-ending list of sources that will state this very same fact.

Not only do all modern definitions of religion indicate that Christianity is constituted as one, but all definitions from early church fathers do as well. In an article from the American Atheists website, Public Relations director Teresa MacBain explains:

"The Augsburg Confession (1530) states, “that … one pure and true religion may be embraced and maintained by us.” Article 30 of the Belgic Confession (1561) insists that the church leaders are in
place so “that by these means true religion may be preserved.” The Westminster Confession (1646) instructs, “in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto [the Scriptures].”  Finally, consider the London Baptist Confession (1689) stating their goal, “to manifest our consent … in all the fundamental articles of the Christian Religion.”  Mr. O’Reilly’s argument that Christianity is not a religion proves that he has not done his homework."

Christianity has enjoyed tax free status for years because it is a religion. If O' Reilly feels so strongly about Christianity not being a religion [but a "philosophy"], would he easily agree that Christian churches should lose tax exempt status?

O' Reilly displays more insanity shortly after declaring that Christianity is not a religion when he says this:

"If the government were saying that the Methodist religion deserves a special place in the public square, I would be on your side."

Here Billo calls a denomination of Christianity [Methodist] a RELIGION, but the entire religion itself he calls a philosophy and not a religion! The insanity doesn't stop there.

Billo then lists what he believes to be actual religions. Billo states, "Roman Catholicism is a religion. Judaism is a religion..." Silverman immediately refutes Billo by stating these are actually sects of Christianity. In reality, O' Reilly and Silverman are both right in claiming Judaism is both a religion and a sect of Christianity. While Jews acknowledge the Old Testament as the true teaching of God, they do not acknowledge the New Testament. Likewise, while they do not follow the religion of Christianity, they follow the same god in which Christians claim Jesus is the human manifestation. Roman Catholicism however, is clearly not a religion, but a denomination/sect of the Christian Church. Why is it that atheists and agnostics know more about this shit than Christians do?

The point of this argument is, however, that Silverman is attempting to explain to O' Reilly that his organization's goal is to stop the government from abandoning religious neutrality and demonstrate equality like the Constitution states it should. Silverman then explains that the Constitution says precisely this.

The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

O' Reilly still clings to his ridiculous notion that Christianity is NOT a religion, but a philosophy. Silverman brilliantly responds, "So you wouldn't have a problem then with the government of the United States establishing atheism, because that's also a philosophy?" Billo then focuses on his usage of the word "establishing" and completely diverts away from Silverman's point and ignores his question.

Then, as if more insanity is needed or required, Billo gets schooled on the meaning of the term "winter solstice", a term that Billo brings into the debate. Billo refers to "winter solstice" as a "holiday". Silverman refutes this too and correctly defines it as "a celestial event", in which Billo [in unambiguous defeat] utters the words that every good Christian person would utter. Billo says, "Jesus Christ" completely outside of the context of the conversation, meaning he was taking the Lord's name in vain. Model Christian behavior there, Billo!

Billo then states that a "Christmas tree" is a secular symbol, but fails to explain why it is not a contradiction for Christians to incorporate a secular symbol in their christian celebration of Christ's birth. Silverman's point of the government picking sides is brilliantly made again when he [Silverman] explains that the usage of term "Christ" in "Christmas tree" is showcasing the government's stamp of approval, which, according to the Constitution, they ought not be doing.

Billo, in extreme panic, to say anything to change the subject because he is getting his ass handed to him on a platter by Silverman, inadvertently shouts out, "Christmas is a federal holiday". Not a very good thing to say to someone who is trying to get the government to be fair concerning religion! Where are the federal holidays for all other religions?

Then, just when I thought the hilarity was over, Billo says the most hilarious thing I have ever heard him spew from his giant lying trap. Billo calls Silverman and his organization a "merry band of fascists".

At this point my ribs are hurting from laughter because not only is Silverman trying to make the point that the government should treat all religions equal and not take sides, but Silverman is the only one in the debate who is denouncing having other people's views [religions] forced upon him by the likes of Billo and the federal government. If anyone in the debate was on the brink of fascistic behavior, it was O' Reilly!

Silverman then had to defend himself against O' Reilly's false accusation that his organization wants Christmas trees removed from the public. This is false, and O' Reilly knows it. Silverman and the American Atheists want there to be neutrality. In other words, if the government endorses Christian symbols, they must endorse them from all religions; if they don't endorse one religion, they must not endorse any. A 2nd grader could understand Silverman's point. Then again, look who Silverman is talking to.

This was a sight to see. This might very well be the biggest ass beating in O' Reilly's sell-out "journalistic" career.

watch Silverman tear O' Reilly a new ass

Monday, November 26, 2012

Fucknut Pat Robertson: Atheists Are Miserable at Christmas, So They Want You to Be Miserable



The withering fossil also claims "They [Atheists] want to steal your holiday away"

by Larry Simons
November 26, 2012

Yesterday on the 700 Club, Christian relic Pat Robertson rose from the primordial ashes once again to discharge yet another irresponsible and abhorrent comment, the only kind he knows how to utter.

Robertson said this:

"Its, well, Christmas all over again. The Grinch is trying to steal our holiday. It’s been so beautiful, the nation comes together, we sing Christmas carols, we give gifts to each other, we have lighted trees, and it’s just a beautiful thing. Atheists don’t like our happiness, they don’t want you to be happy, they want you to be miserable. They’re miserable, so they want you to be miserable. So they want to steal your holiday away from you."

watch the clip, if for no other reason but to see for yourself that he actually said this


In true Bill O' Reilly fashion, Robertson claims that Christmas is once again threatened by...well, anyone they dislike. This time, it's those damned atheists. You know, those who sit around all day planning evil deeds and conspiring how they will stop Christmas from coming. Because after all, that's what atheists do. They hate Christmas so much, they are actually all gathered together as we speak plotting how they will stop Christmas shoppers from shopping, purchasing trees and decorating them, singing Christmas carols, entering places of worship and showing love to their family members.

We all know this will take a massive effort by the atheists. It will also take a lot of time. The atheists just might have to take some time off from doing what they usually do: Worshipping Satan, burning crosses, reading Mein Kampf and kidnapping and molesting your children. Yes, that's right, those atheists must be stopped, and thank God for prophets like Pat Robertson who warn us of these barbaric dregs of humanity.

All sarcasm aside, I must conclude that it is now official: Pat Robertson must be taken away and placed inside a mental institution with its doors locked, and the key needs to be melted down and inserted inside Robertsons' skull right next to the three or four steel plates that already rest there.

Not only is his comment one of the most asinine comments that can be uttered by a human being let alone someone who calls himself "godly", but imagine if you will the level of sheer stupidity that is required for a person to actually believe that, although atheists obviously do not celebrate Christ during this season, they are "miserable" and want everyone else to be miserable.

It is inconceivable to imagine the level of arrogance it takes to literally believe that atheists have nothing to celebrate and no reason to be happy during the Christmas season. The audacity of this archaic Christian prick to even imply that anyone who is not a Christian is unhappy, miserable and has no reason to celebrate during the holiday season brings compassionless inhumanity to a new low, even for Robertson.

The unbelievable irony here is that atheists and agnostics are not the ones sitting around with nothing better to do with their time than to emit detestable comments like this about religious people. It is usually the ones whose job it is to practice refraining from these types of comments who are the very ones speaking them.

If any groups of people are more joyous during the holiday season, it would most likely be atheists and agnostics, for these people are more humanitarian-centered than that of the religious. Religious people tend to be more dependent on an invisible ghost in the sky, looking down on them in judgement of whether they are doing their religious duty of heaping judgement upon others [case-in-point: Robertson's behavior]. Atheists and agnostics do not possess holier-than-thou attitudes toward their fellow man. They treat others like human beings. This is why there is less crime committed by atheists and agnostics as opposed to the unsurprisingly high homicidal rate of the religious. But Robertson wants you to believe it is just the opposite.

Robertson wants us to believe he and every other Christian is a resident of Whoville and atheists and agnostics are the Grinches; unhappy, miserable and wanting to steal everyone's fun. Even if that were the truth in Robertson's mind, there would be one act the residents of Whoville exhibited that he and most Christians would not imitate: forgiving and accepting those who stole from them.

I do not say this about too many people, but I wish Pat Robertson would rid us all of his company and depart this mortal coil before he makes another vile and heartless comment. If Robertson actually went an entire day without spewing a reprehensible comment, now that would be a Christmas miracle.

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Lincoln’s Greatest Failure




(Or, How a Real Statesman Would Have Ended Slavery)

by Thomas DiLorenzo
November 15, 2012

"Every other country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war . . . . How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans when the hatred lingered for 100 years."

~ Ron Paul to Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" in 2007

The new Steven Spielberg movie about Lincoln is entirely based on a fiction, to use a mild term. As longtime Ebony magazine executive editor Lerone Bennett, Jr. explained in his book, Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream: "There is a pleasant fiction that Lincoln . . . became a flaming advocate of the [Thirteenth] amendment and used the power of his office to buy votes to ensure its passage. There is no evidence, as David H. Donald has noted, to support that fiction". (Emphasis added).

In fact, as Bennett shows, it was the genuine abolitionists in Congress who forced Lincoln to support the Thirteenth Amendment that ended slavery, something he refused to do for fifty-four of his fifty-six years. The truth, in other words, is precisely the opposite of the story told in Spielberg’s Lincoln movie, which is based on the book Team of Rivals by the confessed plagiarist/court historian Doris Kearns-Goodwin. (My LRC review of her book was entitled "A Plagiarist’s Contribution to Lincoln Idolatry").

And who is David H. Donald, cited by Bennett as his authority? He is a longtime Harvard University historian, Pulitzer prize-winning Lincoln biographer, and the preeminent mainstream Lincoln scholar of our time. One would think that Goodwin would have considered his work, being a Harvard graduate (in political science) herself.

The theme of the Spielberg movie is the subtitle of Goodwin’s book: "The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln." Nothing gets a leftist’s legs tingling more than someone who is very, very good at the methods of political theft, plunder, subterfuge, and bullying. Goodwin the court historian has devoted her life to writing hagiographies of the worst of the worst political bullies – FDR, Lyndon Johnson, the Kennedys, and Lincoln. (It was her book on the Kennedys that got her in trouble and forced her to admit plagiarizing dozens of paragraphs, and paying a six-figure sum to the victim of her plagiarism. That got her kicked off the Pulitzer prize committee and PBS, but only for a very short while).

Lincoln’s "political genius" is grossly overblown in Goodwin’s book. In addition the book, like virtually all other books on the subject, completely misses the point. If Lincoln was such a political genius, he should have used his "genius" to end slavery in the way the British, French, Spaniards, Dutch, Danes, Swedes, and all the Northern states in the U.S. did in the nineteenth century, namely, peacefully. Instead, the slaves were used as political pawns in a war that resulted in the death of some 800,000 Americans according to the latest, revised estimates of Civil War deaths that has come to be accepted by the history profession. To this number should be added tens of thousands of Southern civilians. Standardizing for today’s population, that would be the equivalent of more than 8 million dead Americans, with more than double that number maimed for life.

Lincoln the "political genius" thanked his naval commander Gustavus Fox for helping him maneuver/trick the Confederates into firing on Fort Sumter, where no one was hurt let alone killed. This, Lincoln believed, gave him the "right" to ignore the constitutional definition of treason (Article 3, Section 3) as levying war upon the states, and levy war upon the (Southern) states in order to "prove," once and for all, that the American union was NOT voluntary, and NOT based on the principle of consent of the governed, as Jefferson declared in the Declaration of Independence. The main purpose of the war was to destroy the Jeffersonian states’ rights vision of government and replace it with the Hamiltonian vision of a highly centralized, dictatorial executive state that would pursue a domestic policy of mercantilism (the Federalist/Whig/Republican Party platform of protectionist tariffs, corporate welfare, and a national bank to finance it all) and a foreign policy of empire and imperialism. The purpose – and result – of the war was to consolidate all political power in Washington, D.C. and to render all states, North and South, as mere appendages of their masters and overseers in Washington. This of course is exactly what happened after the war and it happened by design, not coincidence.

A real statesman, as opposed to a monstrous, egomaniacal patronage politician like Abe Lincoln, would have made use of the decades-long world history of peaceful emancipation if his main purpose was to end slavery. Of course, Lincoln always insisted that that was in no way his purpose. He stated this very clearly in his first inaugural address, in which he even supported the proposed Corwin Amendment to the Constitution, which would have prohibited the federal government from EVER interfering with Southern slavery. He – and the U.S. Congress – declared repeatedly that the purpose of the war was to "save the union," but of course the war destroyed the voluntary union of the founding fathers.

Jim Powell’s book, Greatest Emancipations: How the West Ended Slavery, provides chapter and verse of how real statesmen of the world, in sharp contrast to Lincoln, ended slavery without resorting to waging total war on their own citizens. Among the tactics employed by the British, French, Spanish, Dutch, Danes, and others were slave rebellions, abolitionist campaigns to gain public support for emancipation, election of anti-slavery politicians, encouragement and assistance of runaway slaves, raising private funds to purchase the freedom of slaves, and the use of tax dollars to buy the freedom of slaves. There were some incidents of violence, but nothing remotely approaching the violence of a war that ended up killing 800,000 Americans.

The story of how Great Britain ended slavery peacefully is the highlight of Powell’s book. There were once as many as 15,000 slaves in England herself, along with hundreds of thousands throughout the British empire. The British abolitionists combined religion, politics, publicity campaigns, legislation, and the legal system to end slavery there just two decades prior to the American "Civil War."

Great credit is given to the British statesman and member of the House of Commons, William Wilberforce. After organizing an educational campaign to convince British society that slavery was immoral and barbaric, Wilberforce succeeded in getting a Slavery Abolition Act passed in 1833, and within seven years some 800,000 slaves were freed. Tax dollars were used to purchase the freedom of the slaves, which eliminated the only source of opposition to emancipation, wealthy slave owners. It was expensive, but as Powell notes, nothing in the world is more expensive than war.

Powell also writes of how there was tremendous opposition to ending slavery in the Northern states in the U.S, especially Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island, where violent mobs wrecked abolitionist printing presses; a New Hampshire school that educated black children was dragged into a swamp by oxen; free blacks were prohibited from residing in Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, and Oregon; abolitionist "agitators" in Northern states were whipped; and orphanages for black children were burned to the ground in Pennsylvania. Nevertheless, Northern state abolitionists persevered and ended slavery there peacefully. There were no violent and enormously destructive "wars of emancipation" in New York or New England.

Cuba, Brazil, and the Congo also ended slavery peacefully in the nineteenth century by real statesmen in those countries. But not in the United States. "Some people have objected that the United States couldn’t have bought the freedom of all the slaves, because that would have cost too much," Powell writes. "But buying the freedom of the slaves was not more expensive than war. Nothing is more costly than war!" In fact, the North’s financial costs of war alone would have been enough to purchase the freedom of all the slaves, and then ended slavery legally and constitutionally.

It is a myth that Lincoln toiled mightily in his last days to get a reluctant Congress to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, as portrayed in the Spielberg movie. What he did spend his time on was micromanaging the waging of total war on Southern civilians, who he always considered to be American citizens, since he denied the legitimacy of secession. More importantly, as documented by historians Phillip Magness and Sebastion Page in their book, Colonization After Emancipation, Lincoln spent many long days at the end of his life communicating with foreign governments and plotting with William Seward, among others, to "colonize" all of "the Africans," as he called them, out of the United States once the war was over.

President Obama: It's Perfectly OK to Attack the United States



Did he say these exact words? Well, no. But what he did say is its equivalent 

by Larry Simons
November 20, 2012

During President Obama's visit to Thailand on Sunday, Obama was asked about the current situation with Israel's strikes on Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Naturally, as with nearly all American leaders, Obama gave his full support for Israel in their battle. Obama's response, whether inadvertent or not, was quite interesting when you take into account the foreign policy of the United States.

Obama said:

"Let's understand what the precipitating event here that's causing the current crisis and that was an ever-escalating number of missiles that were landing not just in Israeli territory but in areas that are populated, and there's no country on Earth that would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders,” Obama said at press conference in Thailand at the start of a three-nation tour in Asia.

...So we are fully supportive of Israel's right to defend itself from missiles landing on people's homes and workplaces and potentially killing civilians.

...Israel has every right to expect that it does not have missiles fired into its territory."

Interesting. So, in other words, because the United States repeatedly rains missiles down on Pakistan and Yemen, it stands to reason that Pakistan and Yemen [or any other country in the world we bomb] have every right to defend themselves as well. Obama is basically sending the message to all countries of the world in which the United States uses as continuous target practice, "It is your right to strike back at the United States when we attack you". Where am I wrong?

OK, so he did not say those exact words. Is not the end result exactly the same? If I told someone that I only liked white people, would I have to actually utter the words that I did not like any other race? Is not the end result the same? Of course it is.

Obama, knowingly or not, has openly admitted the absurdity of the foreign policy of the United States. We call those who fight back in countries we [the U.S.A.] bomb "terrorists" and get angered that those who attack us call themselves "freedom fighters". But, when it is Israel being attacked, they are given the stamp of approval by our President. Israelites can't be terrorists....nahhhhh, not them! After all, they are God's people, right?

Listen to Obama openly admit that America's foreign policy [we get to attack other countries, but they cannot strike back] is complete and utter bullshit


Wednesday, November 14, 2012

In Praise of Price Gouging



by Ron Paul
November 12, 2012

As the northeastern United States continues to recover from Hurricane Sandy, we hear the usual outcry against individuals and companies who dare to charge market prices for goods such as gasoline. The normal market response of rising prices in the wake of a natural disaster and resulting supply disruptions is redefined as “price gouging.” The government claims that price gouging is the charging of ruinous or exploitative prices for goods in short supply in the wake of a disaster and is a heinous crime  But does this reflect economic reality, or merely political posturing to capitalize on raw emotions?

In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, the supply of gasoline was greatly disrupted. Many gas stations were unable to pump gas due to a lack of electricity, thus greatly reducing the supply.  At the same time demand for gasoline spiked due to the widespread use of generators. Because gas stations were forbidden from raising their prices to meet the increased demand, miles-long lines developed and stations were forced to start limiting the amount of gasoline that individuals could purchase. New Jersey gas stations began to look like Soviet grocery stores.

Had gas stations been allowed to raise their prices to reflect the increased demand for gasoline, only those most in need of gasoline would have purchased gas, while everyone would have economized on their existing supply. But because prices remained lower than they should have been, no one sought to conserve gas.  Low prices signaled that gas was in abundant supply, while reality was exactly the opposite, and only those fortunate enough to be at the front of gas lines were able to purchase gas before it sold out.  Not surprisingly, a thriving black market developed, with gas offered for up to $20 per gallon.

With price controls in effect, supply shortages were exacerbated.  If prices had been allowed to increase to market levels, the profit opportunity would have brought in new supplies from outside the region.  As supplies increased, prices gradually would have decreased as supply and demand returned to equilibrium. But with price controls in effect, what company would want to deal with the hassle of shipping gas to a disaster-stricken area with downed power lines and flooded highways when the same profit could be made elsewhere?  So instead of gas shipments flooding into the disaster zones, what little gas supply is left is rapidly sold and consumed.

Governments fail to understand that prices are not just random numbers. Prices perform an important role in providing information, coordinating supply and demand, and enabling economic calculation. When government interferes with the price mechanism, economic calamity ensues. Price controls on gasoline led to the infamous gas lines of the 1970s, yet politicians today repeat those same failed mistakes. Instituting price caps at a below-market price will always lead to shortages. No act of any legislature can reverse the laws of supply and demand.

History shows us that the quickest path to economic recovery is to abolish all price controls. If governments really want to aid recovery, they would abolish their “price-gouging” legislation and allow the free market to function.

Commentary
by Larry Simons

I agree and disagree with Ron Paul's usage of the word "gouging". He is correct in using the term in its literal sense. It is used pejoratively to describe when a seller prices goods at a much higher price than the fair market price. Prices should have risen after Sandy hit the east coast, but they did not due to state laws that are in place to prevent price gouging. The irony of these laws is the fact that they were enacted to preserve order and prevent hoarding. As we clearly have seen in New Jersey and New York, these laws did not prevent either.

Gouging has a negative connotation, and rightly so, because it is the exercise of raising prices for the sole purpose of profit. What Congressman Paul is arguing is that, in the case of Sandy, price increases would have weeded out the consumers with the greatest need for gas from the ones who were buying it to hoard it out of panic, or didn't really need as much as they bought. Writer Selwyn Duke puts in brilliantly in his article, when he states, "would you rather have gas available at $7 a gallon or no gas available at $3.50 a gallon?"

The free market will work itself. If consumers are charged $7 a gallon for gas and they need gas badly, they will buy it. If they think it is too expensive and opt not to buy it, they can choose not to. Or they might think long and hard about how much they need and only buy a small amount to get them by. That would be the desired purpose of rising prices: conservation. But it is not just all about how the consumer feels about it or how much they opt to purchase. The price increases also reflect the extra costs and the risk of the suppliers entering disaster-stricken areas. 

Some, like Bill O' Reilly, criticize Ron Paul for the title of his article alone, without ever considering the Congressman's reasons for it. Price controls in New Jersey have resulted in long lines, long waits, hoarding and ultimately a shortage in gas. Ron Paul's way would have eliminated long lines and hoarding completely and would have allowed the supply to remain long enough for a greater supply to arrive.

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

All 50 States Have Petitions Going to Secede from Union



by Larry Simons
November 13, 2012

In the wake of last week's election, all 50 states in the union have filed petitions to secede. This could be a sign of massive voter fraud, or that supporters of Romney and other party candidates have taken the loss so hard, this may have been their only way of coping with it.

The petitions to secede need 25,000 signatures in a 30-day period in order for them to require an official response from the Obama administration.

Mike Krumboltz, writer for Yahoo news said this, "Of course, this is mostly a symbolic gesture. The odds of the American government granting any state permission to go its own way are on par with winning the lottery while getting hit by a meteor while seeing Bigfoot while finding gluten-free pizza that tastes like the real thing."

What Krumboltz [as well as most Americans] does not understand is, the states are sovereign according to our Constitution and do not need permission from the Federal government to secede. Many like Krumboltz also believe that the Constitution does not permit secession or that it is treason. They couldn't be more wrong.

The states have the rights of nullification and secession. How on Earth can the Federal government be more powerful than the states when the states created the federal government? The tenth amendment states that powers not delegated to the Federal government are reserved to the states. There were very few powers originally delegated to the Federal government, only 17 to be exact. It has only been through the passage of time and by the actions of big government Presidents like Lincoln, Wilson and FDR that the Federal government has grown to the colossal monster it has become.

Monday, November 12, 2012

My Favorite Veterans

by Larry Simons
November 12, 2012

Veterans Day was yesterday. I have always had a strong support for the military, mainly because many of my family members served in the military. Here are a few of them, in no particular order. I thank all military personnel for their service, especially the ones in my family.

My grandfather, Laverne Isaac Brendle (1918-1955). Served in the Marine Corps from 1943-1945 in the Pacific during WWII. This photo was taken August 6, 1945, the day the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.


















My father, Richard Lee Simons, Sr. (1940-    ) Served in the Marine Corps from 1956-1960.

















My stepfather, William Craig Garde (1935-2010). Served in the Navy from 1952-1956 during the Korean War. 



Friday, November 9, 2012

Jesse Ventura Puts Whackjob David Icke In His Place on 'Conspiracy Theory'



Icke deflects, dodges and ignores every attempt by Ventura to get to the truth of the Reptilian/human hybrid issue

by Larry Simons
November 9, 2012

Season 3 of Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura began on Wednesday after a year delay [it should have began in late 2011] due to Ventura filing a lawsuit against the TSA and his refusing to fly after an incident with them.

Episode 1 covered the belief or theory that some world leaders are really shape-shifting reptilian lizards who are planning a takeover of the world. This topic is great for an episode of The X Files but attempting to pass it off as reality is lunacy to say the least. Ventura feels the same way, which is why at the end of the episode a feud broke out between Ventura and conspiracy writer David Icke.

Ventura simply wanted evidence, in which Icke replied, "They operate outside of the visible light.." Icke then explained that "not everything that exists, exists within visible light". He likened his belief in reptilians being unable to be seen to radio waves that travel through the air yet cannot be seen. He omitted, of course, that science has proven the existence of radio waves, whereas nothing has proved Icke's nutball lizard people theory.

Instead of simply just answer Ventura's questions, Icke chose to invite Ventura to watch his lectures and read his books. Later in the interview, Ventura accused Icke of being in his racket for money. The show reported that Icke brings in nearly 2 million dollars a year from his books, DVD's, his website and his speaking engagements. So, it's obvious that someone who rakes in that much cash, yet fails to provide answers when confronted is a colossal fraud.

Icke also believes in a New World Order and the Bilderberg Group, two things in which an abundance of evidence does exist. The problem with Icke's involvement in this lizard people bullshit is the very fact that he holds other views in which tangible evidence does exist, and whether Icke realizes it or not [or cares], many will connect David Icke with those among us who hold views that are valid because Icke also embraces those views. In other words, guilt by association. If someone like Alex Jones or myself starts talking about the Bilderberg Group, people might then think we believe in lizard people as well. As Alex Jones tells Ventura in the clip below, "it discredits the things we can prove because it can't be proven."

Another major issue with Icke's nutty belief in reptilian people is the fact that his belief in reptilians clothed in a human outer shell requires one to accept that mankind is powerless and can do nothing about beings from another planet who are running planet Earth. In other words, we can do nothing about it so we might as well accept it. Icke might disagree with that and suggest to people that we can do something about it: Be informed, and to be informed, you have to pay David Icke for his books, DVD's, website membership and his speaking engagements.

It would make more sense to me that David Icke himself is a reptilian from another planet, sent to Earth to spread this nutty bullshit to divert mankind away from how insane it is in order to deceive us into believing they don't exist.

watch the clip


Friday, November 2, 2012

Gay Talk Show Host Tells Gay Romney Supporter He Should Kill Himself



In 2009, talk show host Michelangelo Signorile told Pastor Steve Anderson [who hoped Signorile would get brain cancer and die because he is a homosexual] that he wished Anderson no harm because he [Signorile] upholds "human values". Apparently his "human values" have no room for gay Mitt Romney supporters

by Larry Simons
November 2, 2012

Recently, gay talk show host Michelangelo Signorile told a gay Mitt Romney supporter he should kill himself on his SiriusXM radio broadcast. After telling the caller, named "Wes", that Barack Obama was the clear choice for gay rights, Signorile said, "You went and voted for him [Romney]. It would have been much easier to go to the store and buy some arsenic and make a potion and take it. You know what I mean?"

Signorile added, "That would have been much easier than waiting for the slow, painful death that Mitt Romney will bring you,” Signorile continued. “You should not be allowed to vote."

Signorile then concluded by instructing the caller to, "Go to the drug store. There are plenty of things you could get. It’ll put you to sleep really, really easily, because that would be a better way than the convoluted, twisted way you’re [killing yourself]. You’re stabbing yourself in the back."

Listen to the segment


In Signorile's defense, the caller "Wes" did appear to be either severely braindead or pranking Signorile. Signorile had a point in being appalled that someone who was gay would vote against his own self-interests and choose Romney. My problem with Signorile's behavior toward the caller was that just three short years ago, during an interview with Christian nutball Steve Anderson, Signorile wished no harm to Anderson after Anderson had just wished Signorile would die from brain cancer for simply being a homosexual.

Signorile said to Anderson, "I don't take pleasure in that [Anderson being harmed] because I really do uphold human values."

Apparently Signorile's human values have limits. He has no room for gay Mitt Romney supporters. To Signorile, they are much more of a threat than whackjob pastors who wish death upon Signorile.

Signorile's interview with Steve Anderson
[go to 7:02 in the clip]