Saturday, May 19, 2012
Vasco da Gama Day May 18
Vasco da Gama, commissioned by the king of Portugal, sighted India on May 18, 1498. He commanded the first European ships to make that voyage. Their purpose was to out flank the Moslem powers that had had cut off Europe from the East. At the time there was no land or sea route between Europe and India (or China for that matter) that was not controlled by Arab traders. Spices had become so popular and expensive in Europe that a significant amount of European gold went to the Arab middlemen. This was as politically unpopular as spending on Middle Eastern oil is today. The Egyptian and Turkish empires had recaptured Jerusalem, driven the crusaders out of the Holy Land, and in 1453 had captured Constantinople, thus ending the Eastern Roman Empire. The road to further conquests to the West was open to the Moslem powers. The power of Christian nations was at a low point.
Da Gama's mission was seen as an extension of the Crusades. By opening a trade route around Africa and across the Indian Ocean to India, where the spice markets were, the West would avoid financing the Moslems. Unlike Columbus, who had a similar goal in mind, Vasco da Gama succeeded. The Portuguese had recently developed into a seafaring nation through their explorations down the West African coast. Portugal, like Spain, had recently ended the Moorish rule in the Iberian Peninsula. While the rest of Europe had grown weary of the crusading spirit, the Portuguese were just adopting it. The eventual goal of a sea route to the east was to regain the Holy Land by an invasion from the rear.
Many times during Vasco da Gama’s first Indian voyage, and latter in several naval battles, the Portuguese felt that they were protected and aided by God. Indeed their feats were remarkable. However, their luck seemed to run out. With the success of its eastern trade, Portugal lost its crusading ardor and instead, in the next hundred years, ruthlessly built a commercial empire extending to the East Indies, where the spices grew, and as far as to China. Then as the secrets of their sailing routes became known, Portuguese power in the East gradually declined. Moslem power also declined as European nations slowly began to dominate world trade.
The story of Vasco da Gama and how he brought about the shift of power to Europe, is told in a new book, Holy War, published last year. This brings to mind a book published this year, American Covenant by Timothy Ballard. This is the story that starts with Columbus’ voyages and explains how his crusader goals were eventually accomplished through the birth of the United States, when it was instrumental in re-establishing a Jewish state in Israel. Who was the chief agent of God’s purposes in bringing all that about? According to the Mr. Ballard it was George Washington. Annuit coeptis.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Barney Franks, Maxine Waters, and the Useful Idiots
Barney Franks will not be running for re-election to a 17th term as a US Representative from Massachusetts. If you have ever heard him or know anything about his history, you must agree that this is a good development. The bad news is that Representative Maxine Waters will replace him as head Democrat on the House Banking Committee. If Democrats should take the house in the 2012 election, she will head that committee.
This is bad news because she has disdain for the free market. She loves government control and, for all intents and purposes, is a communist. In one of her most famous sound bites, she states something to the effect that “this liberal” would socialize, that is, have the government take over and run all businesses.
She hates business and loves big government projects. At various times over the last few years, she joined in the opinion of other banking committee Democrats and praised the success of the Community Reinvestment Act and of Fannie May and Freddie Mac. She took the lead of Barney Franks responding to concerns of President Bush, Senator McCain, and others, by stating before congress that Fannie May and Freddie Mac were totally sound, that there was no problem with the housing market, and that the government would never have to take them over. (Which of course it did, when they collapsed because the housing market was far from sound.) Maxine Waters stated that The Community Reinvestment Act was quite successful in doing exactly what it was designed to do, which was to force banks to make mortgage loans to poor credit risks to increase home ownership among lower income people. 1
Now Maxine Waters is saying that the crash of the housing market was caused by “greedy Wall Street bankers.” [That is, GWSB’s for short.] Now GWSB’s may indeed be greedy but they did not have the power to create the housing market meltdown of 2008. [See the book, Meltdown.] Democrat talking points were that there was “plenty of blame to go around.” At the time, Rush Limbaugh pointed out when a Democrat says that, you can be sure that the Democrats own about 95% of the blame.
But now, to listen to Democrats,the media, and the Occupy Wall Street movement, it was the GWSB’s and not the Democrats and big government policies at all that caused the housing and all other economic woes. The Occupiers believe this sort of mush because they are 99% mush brains. They are useful to the 1% of the occupiers who are communist agitators who want to bring down the financial system because they have a Marxist replacement all ready to go.
Note 1, Activist ACORN lawyer, Barak Obama, won a Chicago court case obliging banks to lend billions under the Community Reinvestment Act to borrowers who probably could not repay. Housing Secretary Cuomo admitted that this was what banks were forced to do and he thought it was great. Maxine Waters now says that the banks and the GWSB’s tricked the intercity poor into these loans by "predatory lending."
This is bad news because she has disdain for the free market. She loves government control and, for all intents and purposes, is a communist. In one of her most famous sound bites, she states something to the effect that “this liberal” would socialize, that is, have the government take over and run all businesses.
She hates business and loves big government projects. At various times over the last few years, she joined in the opinion of other banking committee Democrats and praised the success of the Community Reinvestment Act and of Fannie May and Freddie Mac. She took the lead of Barney Franks responding to concerns of President Bush, Senator McCain, and others, by stating before congress that Fannie May and Freddie Mac were totally sound, that there was no problem with the housing market, and that the government would never have to take them over. (Which of course it did, when they collapsed because the housing market was far from sound.) Maxine Waters stated that The Community Reinvestment Act was quite successful in doing exactly what it was designed to do, which was to force banks to make mortgage loans to poor credit risks to increase home ownership among lower income people. 1
Now Maxine Waters is saying that the crash of the housing market was caused by “greedy Wall Street bankers.” [That is, GWSB’s for short.] Now GWSB’s may indeed be greedy but they did not have the power to create the housing market meltdown of 2008. [See the book, Meltdown.] Democrat talking points were that there was “plenty of blame to go around.” At the time, Rush Limbaugh pointed out when a Democrat says that, you can be sure that the Democrats own about 95% of the blame.
But now, to listen to Democrats,the media, and the Occupy Wall Street movement, it was the GWSB’s and not the Democrats and big government policies at all that caused the housing and all other economic woes. The Occupiers believe this sort of mush because they are 99% mush brains. They are useful to the 1% of the occupiers who are communist agitators who want to bring down the financial system because they have a Marxist replacement all ready to go.
Note 1, Activist ACORN lawyer, Barak Obama, won a Chicago court case obliging banks to lend billions under the Community Reinvestment Act to borrowers who probably could not repay. Housing Secretary Cuomo admitted that this was what banks were forced to do and he thought it was great. Maxine Waters now says that the banks and the GWSB’s tricked the intercity poor into these loans by "predatory lending."
Monday, September 12, 2011
Another Obama Speech, more Shenanigans
I have not been writing my comments on current events lately, partly because I am too busy, but also because there has not been much new. Current political events are merely elaborations on the themes of one or two years ago. For instance, see my post of August 11, 2009, Mixed-Up Economy: We Are All Blood Suckers Now. The war of ideas between the Keynesian outlook and the Free market/Small Government school rages even more today.
Another theme of this blog, which has never been as obvious as now, is the observation that generally liberals accuse conservatives of doing exactly what they do, or plan on doing soon. (Such as their accusations of "uncivil" remarks from conservatives.) Today, Obama waved a newspaper and stated that the Republicans oppose his so-called jobs bill because it is to their political advantage, without regard to the damage to the country of not going along with his latest scheme. In actuality, it would seem to me very politically courageous to oppose Obama's proposal to hand out more stimulus money. For conservatives, who believe that less government intervention in the economy will ultimately bring the best results, it could be political suicide to advocate abandonment of bailouts and other government largess.
On the other hand, it may not be difficult to make the point that the "jobs bill" would not save any jobs, and is intended primarily to save Obama's job. He asks that our congressional representatives pass the bill right away, presumably before they have time to read it, just as they passed the other masterpieces of the Harry Reid bill writing factory. Those bills are never what we are told they are. We have to pass the bill "to see what is in it," as Nancy Pelosi tells us. (For instance, we just learned that if congress does not adopt the suggestions of the super-committee of bipartisan spending cutters, we will automatically get cuts to the military and cuts to what medical providers are paid by medicare. It was advertised that there would be cuts to medicare but it was not explained how the cuts would come about. Doctor fees are already cut to the bone.) No telling what will be lurking in the hundreds of pages of the latest Obamination.
What does seem obvious is that the new bill is the same as the old bill. It is a way of looting the treasury and giving the proceeds to his constituents, i.e. to serve Obama's political ends. The primary constituents to be rewarded are, as usual, the unions, especially government unions. There was little or no economic stimulant effect the first time. The Austrian school of free market economics, as well as the Gods of the Copybook Headings, would explain that only the free market can allocate recourse's to fill our most urgent needs. Government intervention only makes things worse with unintended consequences. Bailing out state government workers, for instance, only prolongs the problem of wages and benefits being too high. A 5% cut in government salaries would be a better way to avoid government layoffs. Longterm changes in government pension systems also are needed as soon as possible.
Glenn Beck had a guess the speech segment this morning. He played cuts from Obama's speech advancing the 2009 stimulus bill and his speech the other day pushing the "jobs bill'" You had to guess which speech was which. The only difference that I heard was the new strident, almost threatening tones of the president. He seemed to be ordering congress to pass this latest bill. I guess he was desperate, and ought to be.
Another theme of this blog, which has never been as obvious as now, is the observation that generally liberals accuse conservatives of doing exactly what they do, or plan on doing soon. (Such as their accusations of "uncivil" remarks from conservatives.) Today, Obama waved a newspaper and stated that the Republicans oppose his so-called jobs bill because it is to their political advantage, without regard to the damage to the country of not going along with his latest scheme. In actuality, it would seem to me very politically courageous to oppose Obama's proposal to hand out more stimulus money. For conservatives, who believe that less government intervention in the economy will ultimately bring the best results, it could be political suicide to advocate abandonment of bailouts and other government largess.
On the other hand, it may not be difficult to make the point that the "jobs bill" would not save any jobs, and is intended primarily to save Obama's job. He asks that our congressional representatives pass the bill right away, presumably before they have time to read it, just as they passed the other masterpieces of the Harry Reid bill writing factory. Those bills are never what we are told they are. We have to pass the bill "to see what is in it," as Nancy Pelosi tells us. (For instance, we just learned that if congress does not adopt the suggestions of the super-committee of bipartisan spending cutters, we will automatically get cuts to the military and cuts to what medical providers are paid by medicare. It was advertised that there would be cuts to medicare but it was not explained how the cuts would come about. Doctor fees are already cut to the bone.) No telling what will be lurking in the hundreds of pages of the latest Obamination.
What does seem obvious is that the new bill is the same as the old bill. It is a way of looting the treasury and giving the proceeds to his constituents, i.e. to serve Obama's political ends. The primary constituents to be rewarded are, as usual, the unions, especially government unions. There was little or no economic stimulant effect the first time. The Austrian school of free market economics, as well as the Gods of the Copybook Headings, would explain that only the free market can allocate recourse's to fill our most urgent needs. Government intervention only makes things worse with unintended consequences. Bailing out state government workers, for instance, only prolongs the problem of wages and benefits being too high. A 5% cut in government salaries would be a better way to avoid government layoffs. Longterm changes in government pension systems also are needed as soon as possible.
Glenn Beck had a guess the speech segment this morning. He played cuts from Obama's speech advancing the 2009 stimulus bill and his speech the other day pushing the "jobs bill'" You had to guess which speech was which. The only difference that I heard was the new strident, almost threatening tones of the president. He seemed to be ordering congress to pass this latest bill. I guess he was desperate, and ought to be.
Friday, August 5, 2011
The Continuing Non-Debate Debate
In 1993 President Clinton established the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, headed by Al Gore. If I ever heard of it, I took no notice, as was probably intended. When I started trying to learn about global warming, I was surprised at the almost total lack of objective scientific debate. This policy statement explains what happened to the debate we were promised:
"The Council should not debate the science of global warming, but should instead focus on the implementation of national and local greenhouse gas reduction policies and activities, and adaptations in the U.S. economy and society that maximize environmental and social benefits, minimize economic impacts, and are consistent with U.S. international agreements."
Why Al Gore Refuses to Debate Anyone
I heard a commentator speculate recently that he thought there could be credible opposition to President Obama for the Democrat nomination. He thought that the most likely contender would be Al Gore. I cannot think of anyone else who would cause me to wish for four more years of Barack Obama.
"The Council should not debate the science of global warming, but should instead focus on the implementation of national and local greenhouse gas reduction policies and activities, and adaptations in the U.S. economy and society that maximize environmental and social benefits, minimize economic impacts, and are consistent with U.S. international agreements."
Why Al Gore Refuses to Debate Anyone
I heard a commentator speculate recently that he thought there could be credible opposition to President Obama for the Democrat nomination. He thought that the most likely contender would be Al Gore. I cannot think of anyone else who would cause me to wish for four more years of Barack Obama.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Atlas Shrugs said it first: We Are All Birthers Now
Your Papers, please, Mr. President
FEC Commission, Requesting Obama Birth Certificate Investigation UPDATE: SIGN THE PETITION:
A New Twist in Obama Birth Certificate Mystery
All you ever (or never) wanted to know about the "Birth Certificate" controversy:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/obamas_birth_certifcate_forgery/
The first three links are to three of 63 posts dating to before the presidential election on the website of "Atlas Shrugs." The last link is to the entire article where Atlas discusses the various posts and ties some of the issues together. This goes into scrubbing the internet and possibly altering official records by BHO operatives, and even to the murder of a witness. This is a whole lot more that a few second rate burglars breaking into the Watergate. The official reaction and the press reaction, that is the cover-up, is the story, not the birth certificate. It gets more bazaar and intresting all the time.
FEC Commission, Requesting Obama Birth Certificate Investigation UPDATE: SIGN THE PETITION:
A New Twist in Obama Birth Certificate Mystery
All you ever (or never) wanted to know about the "Birth Certificate" controversy:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/obamas_birth_certifcate_forgery/
The first three links are to three of 63 posts dating to before the presidential election on the website of "Atlas Shrugs." The last link is to the entire article where Atlas discusses the various posts and ties some of the issues together. This goes into scrubbing the internet and possibly altering official records by BHO operatives, and even to the murder of a witness. This is a whole lot more that a few second rate burglars breaking into the Watergate. The official reaction and the press reaction, that is the cover-up, is the story, not the birth certificate. It gets more bazaar and intresting all the time.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Why the Barack Obama Birth Certificate Issue Is Legitimate
The Obama birthplace, i.e. birther question is a bit of a sticky wicket and a can of worms. There are many subtle issues. My bottom line is that it is an interesting story for historians to discuss, but it is not something that will get Obama out of office, so why bother.
However, there are two types of birth certificates and Obama presented a copy on line of one but not the other. The birthers ask, "where is the other one(the original one) on which the certified, computer generated one, is based?"
The question is: Are there two types of Hawaiian birth certificates. The answer is yes, The actual original (usually signed by the doctor) and A computer generated certified copy containing, "the contents of any certificate." (The validity of the certificates is a different, more complex question.) (See HRS §338-13 Certified copies;
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0013.htm )
A detailed discussion of this is at:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Discuss:Is_a_certification_of_live_birth_the_same_thing_as_a_birth_certificate_in_Hawaii#ixzz1J0WTZrjb .
A summary along the same lines, also addressing other birther issues, is at:
Why the Barack Obama Birth Certificate Issue Is Legitimate
However, there are two types of birth certificates and Obama presented a copy on line of one but not the other. The birthers ask, "where is the other one(the original one) on which the certified, computer generated one, is based?"
The question is: Are there two types of Hawaiian birth certificates. The answer is yes, The actual original (usually signed by the doctor) and A computer generated certified copy containing, "the contents of any certificate." (The validity of the certificates is a different, more complex question.) (See HRS §338-13 Certified copies;
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0013.htm )
A detailed discussion of this is at:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Discuss:Is_a_certification_of_live_birth_the_same_thing_as_a_birth_certificate_in_Hawaii#ixzz1J0WTZrjb .
A summary along the same lines, also addressing other birther issues, is at:
Why the Barack Obama Birth Certificate Issue Is Legitimate
Friday, April 1, 2011
Atlas Shrugs Food for Thought
We are getting a strong dose of socialism along with the expected results: depressed, stagnant economic activity. In addition we are getting increased government spending, borrowing, and printing of money, which is the usual socialist fix to economic stagnation, which as usual, only make the problem worse.
We have riots and wars throughout the Middle East, all of which we should have kept our nose out of, except the Iranian pro-democratic riots, which were the only ones the our government did not support.
I usually feel better when I listen to Atlas Shruggs (Pam Geller) or Sarah Palin, so here is Atlas talking about Sarah:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ycPSsERhbo&feature=related
and on Ann Coulter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xz8VbtHJp3M&feature=related
Atlas gets quite serious discussing radical Islam:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkiqzpXKNVQ
lastly, Atlas on Obamacare, Tea Parties, Climate Justice...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEmlye62sfw&NR=1
Fabulous News: The movie Atlas Shrugged comes out in a few weeks.
We have riots and wars throughout the Middle East, all of which we should have kept our nose out of, except the Iranian pro-democratic riots, which were the only ones the our government did not support.
I usually feel better when I listen to Atlas Shruggs (Pam Geller) or Sarah Palin, so here is Atlas talking about Sarah:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ycPSsERhbo&feature=related
and on Ann Coulter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xz8VbtHJp3M&feature=related
Atlas gets quite serious discussing radical Islam:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkiqzpXKNVQ
lastly, Atlas on Obamacare, Tea Parties, Climate Justice...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEmlye62sfw&NR=1
Fabulous News: The movie Atlas Shrugged comes out in a few weeks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)