It Is Possible To Make Obama Even Scarier Than He Already Is…
The Looking Spoon ^ | 4-8-13 | The Looking Spoon
Posted on Monday, April 08, 2013 2:17:51 PM by The Looking Spoon
Some might take issue with the title relative to Obama, because with respect to his execution of Alinsky‘s vision he has been masterful at times, but there’s that, and then there’s not being smart enough to figure out how wrong liberalism/socialism/communism is.
Paul Krugman Proves Himself To Be a Fraud (Again) … “The purpose of all the over-the-top smears, as outlined in Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, the “bible” of Obammunists like Krugman, is to censor public criticism of healthcare socialism in particular and Big, Out-of-Control Government in general.” ~ by Thomas DiLorenzo
Recently by Thomas DiLorenzo: The Sales Tax Price-Fixing Conspiracy Act of 2013
A couple of years ago when I appeared as one of Ron Paul‘s witnesses (the first one, actually) during his House of Representatives hearings on the Fed, the Democrats got the biggest leftist on the committee to smear, libel, and slander me by repeating the smears, libels, and slanders about me (and virtually all other libertarians and conservatives) by the left-wing hate group known as the Southern Poverty Law Center.
The hate group’s typical line is this: 1) DiLorenzo wrote a book critical of Lincoln’s economic policies; 2) Therefore, he must want to bring back slavery. Since we now live in a nation of morons, the SPLC is able to raise millions of dollars in contributions from below-50-I.Q. liberals and leftists with such smears.
“Send us money and we will keep an eye on these people,” they say. (This is the same group of communistic crackpots who convinced Big Sister Janet Napolitano to publicly announce that people with Ron Paul bumper stickers on their cars may be considered potential terrorists by her Department of Fatherland Security).
On the Impossibility of Limited Government and the Prospects for a Second American Revolution by Hans-Hermann Hoppe…
On the Impossibility of Limited Government and the Prospects for a Second American Revolution
Recently by Hans-Hermann Hoppe: Obsessed by Megalomania
This essay was originally published in Reassessing the Presidency: The Rise of the Executive State and the Decline of Freedom, edited by John V. Denson, pp. 667–696. An MP3 audio file of this article, read by Dr. Floy Lilley, is available for download.
In a recent survey, people of different nationalities were asked how proud they were to be American, German, French, etc., and whether or not they believed that the world would be a better place if other countries were just like their own. The countries ranking highest in terms of national pride were the United States and Austria. As interesting as it would be to consider the case of Austria, we shall concentrate here on the United States and the question of whether and to what extent the American claim can be justified.
In the following, we will identify three main sources of American national pride, the first two of which are justified sources of pride, while the third actually represents a fateful error. Finally, we will look at how this error might be repaired.
Paul Krugman Answers Paul Ryan on Debt Crisis: We Can Print Money… (“…Paul Krugman said Wednesday that that is not a legitimate worry because the U.S. government can always print money and weaken the buying power of the dollar. Weakening the dollar, Krugman said, would be a good thing.”)
(CNSNews.com) – Responding to House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan’s warning that if the federal government continues to run annual $1 trillion deficits we will eventually face a debt crisis, liberal economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman said Wednesday that that is not a legitimate worry because the U.S. government can always print money and weaken the buying power of the dollar.
Weakening the dollar, Krugman said, would be a good thing.
“The United States is a country that has its own currency–can’t run out of cash because we print the money. If you even try to think what would happen–suppose that investors get down on the United States. Even so, that would weaken the dollar, not send interest rates soaring, and that would be good. That would help our exports,” Krugman said on C-SPAN’s “Newsmakers.”
The Coming Debt Limit Drama: Government Wins, We Lose (Ron Paul)
Free foundation ^ | January 21, 2013 | Ron Paul
Posted on Monday, January 21, 2013 3:46:47 PM by listenhillary
Last week President Obama bluntly warned Congress that he will not negotiate when it comes to raising the statutory debt limit. If Republicans attempt to use a debt ceiling vote to win concessions on spending from the White House, Mr. Obama threatens simply to raise the limit by executive order or other unilateral action.
Economic disaster is dead ahead and we are racing toward it at an incredible speed. Elected officials, of both parties, are reckless, hopeless, irresponsible, and criminal.
President Obama can declare immunity for hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens and can also unilaterally order the broad refinancing of mortgages on millions of “underwater” homeowners in order to reduce principal payments and debt,
“If we discovered that, you know, space aliens were planning to attack and we needed a massive buildup to counter the space alien threat and really inflation and budget deficits took secondary place to that, this slump would be over in 18 months,” he declared, arguing in favor of the president’s stimulus package. “And then if we discovered, oops, we made a mistake, there aren’t any aliens, we’d be better [off].”
Now, a little less than 12 months later, the stimulus package has been passed and economic recovery is nowhere in sight. What is Nobel laureate, Princeton professor, and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman’s solution?
Again, prepare for an alien invasion.
Krugman: Scientists Should Falsely Predict Alien Invasion So Government Will Spend More Money By Noel Sheppard Created 05/26/2012 – 4:15pm
Last year New York Times columnist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman called for space aliens to invade earth so that the government would spend money to mount a defense thereby stimulating the economy.
While Ron Paul will no longer actively campaign in the remaining state primaries, he will nevertheless continue in the delegate-winning strategy, and go to the Republican convention. Contrary to State-shilling media hoaxers and propagandists, Dr. Paul has NOT dropped out of the race, and those who hope for a future of freedom should vote in remaining primaries.
But one must wonder why Ron Paul has not received as many votes as he should have during this election campaign.
Well, one of the unfortunate consequences of democracy and especially government’s seizure of education has been the decline in critical thinking and common sense in America.
Ron Paul Vows To Stay In 2012 Race. Untill all votes are Counted. [May not endorse Mitt]
Daily Paul ^ | April 30, 2012
Posted on Tuesday, May 01, 2012 10:40:27 AM by greyfoxx39
The libertarian, who is experiencing surge of support in delegates, made the statement after going head-to-head with Nobel Prize-winning economist — and ideological opposite — Paul Krugman in a debate about the U.S. economy.
“Depends on what his platform is going to be,” he said in an interview with Bloomberg’s “Street Smart.” “If every single thing in the platform I disagree with, it’s gonna be tough [to endorse him (Romney)] . If it’s 100 percent opposite of everything I’ve said on civil liberties, on war issues, on spending cuts, on monetary policy, what could I do?”
He continued: “We have millions of people now supporting our campaign, and millions that haven’t been heard of because they are independents and Democrats that aren’t happy with Obama…
Who do you think won the debate? Did stimulus (Paul Krugman’s position), debt liquidation (Ron Paul’s perspective), or something else end the Great Depression?
Obama Attacks Rush Limbaugh, Grover Norquist
Weekly Standard ^
Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2012 9:41:47 AM by Sub-Driver
Obama Attacks Rush Limbaugh, Grover Norquist “I think Jon Stewart’s brilliant.” Daniel Halper April 25, 2012 9:08 AM
President Barack Obama sat down with Rolling Stone for an hour long interview, which the editors there are billing the “most substantive interview the president has granted in over a year.” The president used the opportunity to single out two conservative Americans for attack.
The president was asked, “Is there any way to break through that obstructionism by Republicans?”
He responded by attacking conservatives Rush Limbaugh and Grover Norquist:
My hope is that if the American people send a message to them that’s consistent with the fact that Congress is polling at 13 percent right now, and they suffer some losses in this next election, that there’s going to be some self-reflection going on – that it might break the fever. They might say to themselves, “You know what, we’ve lost our way here. We need to refocus on trying to get things done for the American people.”
“They don’t call them patients, they call them units” (Sarah was right, again)
Wizbang ^ | November 24, 2011 | Rick Rice
Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2011 9:59:08 AM by 2ndDivisionVet
Listen to this neurosurgeon, fresh from a seminar in Washington DC, tell about what it is that the HHS has in store for seniors:
(AUDIO AT LINK)
The Anchoress calls it what it is. Evil:
So if you are a 70 year-old Nancy Pelosi, or Paul Krugman — with a potent private health insurance plan such as the one enjoyed by Members of Congress and other bureaucrats — you will get every appropriate surgery and treatment applicable.
But if you are a 70 year-old former bookkeeper or waitress on Medicare, well — you have swung your last golfclub or danced your last waltz, because the “ethics panel” that assesses your unithood will have no problem inventing a equation that goes something like, “Potential-Tax-revenues-minus-potential-cost-divided-by-social-and-political-value-equals…a negligible unit.
And you’ll be shuffled off to the room with the big screen full of daffodils and excellent speakers blasting Vivaldi, and made “comfortable.”
Obama: I want to be known as the Junket President
Townhall.com ^ | November 11, 2011 | John Ransom
Posted on Friday, November 11, 2011 7:19:59 AM by Kaslin
Our jet-set president starts another round of leading from behind this week as he leaves for Hawaii, Australia and Bali to see if he can learn from and share with other world leaders how they create jobs, ignore their constitution, arm drug cartels without getting subpoenaed; or at, the very least how they shave a shot or two off their handicap.
Oh, if only Obama could be the president of China. The world would make a lot more sense. He could then invest in as many foreign green companies as he wanted.
As the Congressional Super Committee crafts a Super Compromise that aims at preventing across-the-board federal budget cuts, Obama has decided to distance himself as far as possible from any deal- or work- literally distance himself by 10, 217 air miles as he attends a summit for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.
At the recent tea party-sponsored GOP debate Wolf Blitzer asked Ron Paul what we should do if a 30-year-old man chose not to purchase health insurance and then found himself in need of six months of intensive care. “That’s what freedom is all about — taking your own risks,” said Paul.
Blitzer followed up, “So, society should let him die?”
Before Paul could answer, the crowd erupted with cheers and shouts of “Yeah!”
Who are these tea party people?!
A year and a half ago when this movement got started we were assured they were just “average Americans.” And polls in April 2010 showed this was somewhat true: a little over half were Republican and the rest were independents and conservative Democrats. But the latest survey of their membership shows a much different picture. More than 80 percent are Republicans, 15 percent are independents and 5 percent Dems. They are for the most part the radical religious-right sector of the Republican Party that we have always known.
The most recent study of this group, posted Aug, 17, 2011, on the Internet, reveals the truth: They are white, have a low regard for immigrants and blacks, have a desire for religion to play a prominent role in politics, seek deeply religious elected officials, want religion brought into political debates.
These people who scream to let the poor fellow without health insurance die are religious! And let’s say it, they are Christian religious!
This is most disconcerting to me, a Christian clergy person. I have always assumed being Christian meant being compassionate for the weak and vulnerable. And especially those who are vulnerable through no fault of their own. For as Krugman points out, most uninsured Americans either have low incomes and cannot afford insurance or are rejected by insurers because they have chronic conditions. The tea party attitude, evidently from the audience response last week, is let them wither and die.
The same for immigrants. The same for minority school children in poor school districts. The same for Muslims.
So, the lack of compassion has become a matter of principle for tea party members.
It is a truly radical movement that is angry and organized to overturn the kind of society that we have enjoyed in the past, a society that tries, with the help of government, to ease some of the hazards of life through programs like Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicare and Medicaid.
“Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalist System was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.”
“There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.”
Keynes warned that terrible hatreds would be unleashed against “profiteers” who enriched themselves through inflation as the middle class was wiped out. And he pointed with alarm to Germany, where the mark had lost most of its international value.
By November 1923, the German currency was worthless, hauled about in wheelbarrows to buy groceries. The middle class had been destroyed. German housewives were prostituting themselves to feed their families. That same month, Adolf Hitler attempted his Munich Beer Hall Putsch.
Fearing falling prices, professor Kenneth Rogoff, former chief economist for the International Monetary Fund, is pushing for an inflation rate of 5 to 6 percent while conceding that his proposal is rife with peril and “we could end up with 200 percent inflation.”
Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winner and columnist for The New York Times, is pushing Bernanke in the same direction.
Bernanke, writes Krugman, should take the advice he gave Japan in 2000, when he urged the Bank of Japan to stimulate the economy with “an announcement that the bank was seeking moderate inflation, ‘setting a target in the 3-4 percent range for inflation, to be maintained for a number of years.’”
And who inspired Bernanke to urge Tokyo to inflate? Krugman modestly credits himself.
“Was Mr. Bernanke on the right track? I think so — as well I should, since his paper was partly based on my own earlier work.”
But Krugman is not optimistic about Bernanke’s injecting the U.S. economy with a sufficient dose of inflation.
Why is Ben hesitant? Two words, says Krugman: “Rick Perry.”
Krugman believes Bernanke has been intimidated by Perry’s populist threat in Iowa after his first day of campaigning:
“If this guy (Bernanke) prints more money between now and the election, I don’t know what y’all would do to him in Iowa, but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas. Printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost treasonous.”
Perry was indulging in Texas hyperbole, and the press came down hard on him for language unbefitting a presidential candidate.
Yet Perry has raised a legitimate series of questions.
What should be done to high officials of the U.S. government who consciously set out to dilute and destroy the savings and income of working Americans? What should be done to those who have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution and then steal the wealth of citizens by secretly manipulating the value of the currency, the store of wealth upon which those people depend?
Is inducing inflation — debauching the currency, the systematic and secret theft of the savings of citizens — a legitimate policy option for the Federal Reserve? Has Congress authorized official thievery?
Who do these economists think they are?
Inflation rewards debt — and erodes savings. It is legalized counterfeiting, the deliberate creation of money with nothing to back it up.
If a citizen printed dollars bills, he would be tracked by the Secret Service, prosecuted and imprisoned. Why, then, is the Fed’s clandestine printing of money with nothing to back it up a legitimate exercise and, according to Krugman & Co., a desirable policy for Bernanke and the Fed?
Schooled economists such as Rogoff, Krugman and Bernanke know how to shelter their wealth from the ravages of inflation — and even to get rich. But what about widows whose husbands leave a nest egg of savings in cash and bonds? What are they supposed to do as the value of their savings is wiped out at 4, 5 or 6 percent a year — or whatever annual rate of ruin the Rogoffs and the Krugmans decide upon?
This is not only an economic issue but a moral issue.
To inflate a currency is to steal the money citizens have earned and saved and entrusted their government to protect. Any government that betrays that trust and steals that wealth is not only unworthy of support. It is worthy of being overthrown.
On this one, as Keynes said, Lenin was right.
Perry and Ron Paul deserve the nation’s gratitude for putting this issue of the unfettered power and the amorality of our unelected Federal Reserve on the political docket.
@TPCarney: Krugman says it wasn’t big enough.
Amidst “alien invasion” rant, many miss the point that NY Times economist was advocating a staged crisis
Paul Joseph Watson
Monday, August 15, 2011
Amidst the melodramatic reaction to economist Paul Krugman’s eyebrow-raising rant about the impact an alien invasion would have on the US economy, many have missed the point, that Krugman was calling on the government to manufacture a staged event or a war to act as a smokescreen for the continued looting of the American people.
Krugman, a New York Times writer who is routinely lambasted by the likes of Max Keiser and Gerald Celente for being a stooge for the establishment and an apologist for the Federal Reserve, appeared on CFR luminary Fareed Zakaria’s CNN show to make a seemingly radical argument.
“If we discovered that space aliens were planning to attack and we needed a massive buildup to counter the space alien threat and really inflation and budget deficits took secondary place to that, this slump would be over in 18 months. And then if we discovered, oops, we made a mistake, there aren’t any aliens, we’d be better,” remarked Krugman.
“There was a Twilight Zone episode like this in which scientists fake an alien threat in order to achieve world peace. Well, this time…we need it in order to get some fiscal stimulus,” he added.
Predictably, subsequent discussion about Krugman’s comments were concentrated around his lurid analogy of an extraterrestrial invasion, while missing the elephant in the living room and the real point of the rant – Krugman’s advocacy for the Obama administration to stage a fake crisis, or indeed a war, in order to ram through its economic agenda…………………..
Look at the ongoing negotiations over raising the debt ceiling. Almost from the beginning, President Obama has been described as being, or hoping to position himself as, “the adult in the room.” This has become the received metaphor, operating as a sort of Gresham’s law of political dialogue: Once introduced, it drives out most any other possible language.
Here are just a handful of examples from the past few weeks:
“Leading off: The adult in the room? That’s how President Obama is trying to portray himself, the calm daddy trying to discipline the group of unruly children on the other side of Pennsylvania Avenue.” (Chuck Todd, “Hardball”). “[I]f you are playing the responsible adult in the room and the other guy is willing to blow up the room if he doesn’t get exactly what he wants, that puts you in a bad negotiating position” (Paul Krugman, “This Week with Christiane Amanpour“). “At his press conference on June 29, [President Obama] threatened to cancel lawmakers’ recess until an agreement was reached. As before, Obama cast himself as the adult in the room” (Politico).
There’s more. “Heading into Monday’s meeting, Obama tried yet again to elevate himself above
Paul Krugman Calls for the Assassination of Paul Ryan
Paul Krugman Calls for the Assassination of Paul Ryan
Posted on Monday, April 18, 2011 1:45:47 AM by 4rcane
RedState co-founder Josh Trevino has noticed the following: back in January, Paul Krugman was one of many drooling idiot leftists devoid of any moral compass who tried to pin the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords on a lack of Republican civility. Even though, by the time Krugman’s column ran, it was clear that Giffords’ shooter was a mentally disturbed individual whose assassination plot was not motivated by coherent political theory of any stripe, Krugman was not about to let facts get in the way of a good partisan narrative:
It’s true that the shooter in Arizona appears to have been mentally troubled. But that doesn’t mean that his act can or should be treated as an isolated event, having nothing to do with the national climate.
Yes, Krugman claimed, without any appreciable sense
of shame, that a man who was seriously mentally ill was merely a symptom of – no kidding – “toxic rhetoric.” Well, three whole months have passed since Krugman peddled this tripe and apparently, Krugman’s sense of shame hasn’t become any more well-developed. Now he’s got a piece out on Paul Ryan’s deficit reduction plan. The title – the TITLE – of this piece? Let’s Not be Civil.
According to Paul Krugman, Paul Krugman has just called for the assassination of Paul Ryan.
Browse · Search
|Pings · Mail||Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article
Palin, Beck, Tea Party are not responsible for Giffords shooting
examiner.com ^ | 1/8/2011 | Joe Newby
Posted on Sunday, January 09, 2011 9:06:17 AM by FredJake
Let’s get one thing straight.
In fact, the only person responsible is the nut who allegedly pulled the trigger. “Alleged”, because that person is now in police custody awaiting trial, and in this country a person is innocent until proven guilty.
Unless you happen to be a conservative who disagrees with Barack Obama.
Liberal media pundits are turning themselves inside out blaming everyone to the right of Joseph Stalin, just as they did after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.
Keith Olbermann attacked everyone at Fox News, and demanded Beck apologize for his rhetoric.
A reporter at CNN laid the blame at Sarah Palin for rhetoric that “allowed this kind of thing to happen.”
Ignoring the entire eight years of the Bush Presidency, Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post made the ludicrous claim that “violent” rhetoric comes exclusively from the right.
Paul Krugman tried to lay the blame on Sarah Palin and her use of a target graphic.
A CBS report furthers the lunatic idea that Palin is responsible for the shooting because of the image of a target.
The Associated Press did the same thing, according to a post at Newsbusters.
Instead of looking at the background of the alleged shooter, the Democrat-media complex is hell bent on demonizing any critic of any Democrat as being responsible somehow for the tragedy in Arizona. According to the left, anyone who watches Fox News had a hand in the shooting.
The news is coming so thick and fast these days one can hardly keep up with it, let alone comment intelligently. But we should at least note that Marine General Jim Jones resigned as President Obama’s National Security Adviser today, and will be replaced by political operative Tom Donilon.
It is hard to remember now, but shortly after his election, Obama’s selection of Gen. Jones as national security adviser, along with a handful of similar appointments, caused us and other observers who are even more knowledgeable to hail what seemed to be a reassuringly moderate trend in Obama’s nascent foreign policy.
Those days are long gone now, and it seems that Jones never had much influence.
Reuters reports that Jones was “often portrayed as an outsider who struggled to make his voice heard over Obama’s close-knit group of advisers who were with him on his 2008 election campaign.”Donilon is cut from a different cloth:In veteran U.S. journalist Bob Woodward‘s new book “Obama’s Wars,” which gives an inside look at how Obama crafted his Afghan war strategy, Donilon is shown as deeply skeptical of a big troop increase in Afghanistan.
In other words, he agrees with the President. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told Woodward that it would be a “disaster” if Donilon were to become National Security Adviser, but Gates now says he has a “good working relationship” with Donilon, “contrary to what you may have read.” That seems like less than a recantation.Andy McCarthy meanwhile, skewers the New York Times’ characterization of Donilon as a “non-ideological pragmatist.”
Of course, to the Times, Paul Krugman is a non-ideological pragmatist. Andy notes that Donilon’s boss, General Jones, like Gates, has reservations about him:Jones echoed criticisms that Donilon lacked critical national security experience and existed in a lawyer’s bunker, his power stemming from his status as a Democratic fixer who has the president’s ear — an ear Donilon routinely fills with “snap judgments” and “absolute declarations” about places he’s never been to, foreign officials he’s never met, and a military with which he has no credibility.
Donilon’s appointment is one more sign that President Obama is abandoning any pretense of moderation, and is instead lurching to the left, surrounding himself with people with whom he is comfortable–Democratic Party political operatives–rather than those with whom he is not comfortable, like military men.
The latest Paul Krugman op-ed may be his most complete and clear summation of his views on politics and the economy, smartly drawing a comparison between the current state of things, and the state of play in 1938. His first paragraph says it all.Here’s the situation: The U.S. economy has been crippled by a financial crisis. The president’s policies have limited the damage, but they were too cautious, and unemployment remains disastrously high. More action is clearly needed. Yet the public has soured on government activism, and seems poised to deal Democrats a severe defeat in the midterm elections.Of course, the year is 1938, and the President is FDR, who listened to closely to the deficit hawks, and then upon failing to save the economy, lost the support of the people for more stimulus.
ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW
Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2009 8:17:24 AM by vietvet67
It took less than a month for the default leadership style of President Obama to appear. How long will it take for the forgotten man who believed in him to awaken to the consequences?