Sunday, August 21, 2011

Stuff You Won't See on the News!



For all the news junkies and those who are interested in the issues with Islam, the western world and the decline of the west, please follow the series with Charles Hill and Faoud Ajami.   This is followed by a video series regarding the Soviet Union, communism and the west.  I hardily recommend these two video series because you not only will you not see this on the news....I guarantee that you will never see this on the History or Discovery Channels.  RK


In London and other English cities, young black savages have been wreaking such havoc that even Prime Minister David Cameron, who is generally as genteel as Queen Victoria, has referred to them as “scum.”  It figured that once England’s riffraff showed the world what they were made of, America’s own would step up to the challenge. The fact is, if there were an Olympics where young louts could compete for medals in such events as car-burning, looting and beating up innocent people, our own black thugs would consistently bring home the gold.


All right, I’ll come clean. I have to admit it. I am a Lutheran. And that, at least according to Joshua Green at The Atlantic, would seem to be pretty fringey stuff. Definitely outside the realm of respectable opinion in today’s world. (Which must be a surprise to all those Garrison Keillor fans.) Or… maybe I’m not a Lutheran at all, really. If you were to speak to an official of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, to one of whose congregations presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann used to belong, they’d probably tell you that my own church, a member of a conservative but pietistic fellowship, isn’t really Lutheran in the proper meaning of the term. We’re insufficiently sacramental in our focus, and so not truly Lutheran. And you know what? I’m OK with that.


Can we really rein in the long term growth of federal power, spending, taxation and debt? Is it enough to rely on politicians in Washington to limit their own power? In how many of the next 50 years will there be a conservative majority in Washington? How likely is it that conservative majorities will be cyclical not permanent? Do we need new constitutional limits on federal power in addition to working for conservative majorities in Washington? Is 2/3 of Congress likely to propose any constitutional limit on its own? Is state-initiated constitutional reform effort an important option for enacting new limits on federal government power? Would Congress be more likely to propose an Amendment that limits its power, when the alternative is being forced by states to call an Article V Convention? Is there significant concern, whether justified or not, about the possibility that an Article V convention of states could become a runaway convention? Does Article V, correctly interpreted, gives states the power to limit the scope of a convention they call?


I get into a lot arguments with conservatives over very non-conservative causes they believe in. For some reason there are just some conservatives who do not have a problem with certain unconstitutional acts. And just like liberals do, they all sorts of ways to justify their support for said heinous things. You know, like how Ron Paul finds ways to justify requesting earmarks for his district while simultaneously claiming to be against earmarks……..Farm subsidies go mostly to only certain crops and activities and mostly to a very select few “farmers” which tend to be huge corporate entities. Not that there is anything wrong with corporate farms mind you. Although some people have an irrational fear of them. Now, these farm subsidies include, from highest to lowest in 2010: corn, wheat, soybeans, cotton, rice, sorghum, livestock, tobacco (something government claims to hate and get rid of), peanuts, barley, the dairy industry, sunflowers, canola, oat, wool, flax and “trees”[1]. There are also huge payments made to programs for disaster relief and conservation as well as wetlands preservation.


Liberals like to think the laws of economics are like the laws of physics. In physics, particles behave differently on the subatomic level than they do in the macroscopic realm. This is because as one gets smaller and smaller, different forces become dominant and take control of how particles interact with one another thus leading to sometimes counterintuitive solutions. This is why there is an entire field of physics, called quantum mechanics, to deal with this special situation. Economics however, does not act differently on the macro or micro level. Yes, there are actually two fields of economics; microeconomics and macroeconomics. And economists, for God only knows what reason, actually try to forcibly separate the two. I think this is why liberals get confused.

No comments: