About Me

Name: Miguel Diocuore...
Email: mikecorthell@roadrunner.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

United States To Break Up Soon?

Posted by Miguel Diocuore Ph.D. on Wednesday, November 04, 2009 4:44:23 PM

United States To Break Up Soon?


''Will the Russian analyst's prophecies come true in 2010? Probably not. Does that mean that America is impervious to some sort of national demise? Not at all. Is America already in serious trouble? You bet. Could there be some sort of break-up within the United States in the near future? In my opinion, that is a very realistic probability.''

According to Macedonian Radio and Television On-line (MRT), a Russian professor predicts the United States will fall apart in July 2010. MRT reports, "'Mr. Obama is similar to the last Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Gorbachev was also making great promises for the Soviet Union, but the situation was only getting worse,' he said. By next summer, according to Professor Panarin, the US will disintegrate into six blocs--and everyone will get their piece. 'The probability that the United States of America fall apart in July 2010 is more than 50 percent,' said Igor Panarin, Professor at Moscow's Diplomatic Academy within the Russian Federation's Ministry of Foreign Affairs."
MRT went on to report, "Panarin came up with his grim forecast while analyzing the parallels between the Soviet Union in its final days and the current situation in the United States. 'American dream ballooned seven times in 11 years. During Gorbachev era, the Soviet dream ballooned five times.' Americans hope [President] Barack Obama 'can work miracles,' he wrote. 'But when spring comes, it will be clear that there are no miracles.'"
See the MRT report here.
The Drudge Report confirmed the MRT report and added, "Professor Igor Panarin said in an interview with the respected daily IZVESTIA . . . 'The dollar is not secured by anything. The country's foreign debt has grown like an avalanche, even though in the early 1980s there was no debt. By 1998, when I first made my prediction, it had exceeded $2 trillion. Now it is more than 11 trillion. This is a pyramid that can only collapse.'"
At least some of what Panarin said back in the fall of 2008 either has taken place or is in the process of taking place. Drudge reported, "When asked when the U.S. economy would collapse, Panarin said: 'It is already collapsing. Due to the financial crisis, three of the largest and oldest five banks on Wall Street have already ceased to exist, and two are barely surviving. Their losses are the biggest in history. Now what we will see is a change in the regulatory system on a global financial scale: America will no longer be the world's financial regulator.'" http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin537.htm
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Swine Gitmo

Posted by Miguel Diocuore Ph.D. on Wednesday, November 04, 2009 4:42:02 PM

Swine Gitmo

Tags: Swine Gitmo  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Is free speech dead?

Posted by Miguel Diocuore Ph.D. on Wednesday, November 04, 2009 4:40:58 PM

Is free speech dead?


I recently came to understand that Peter Vadala, a Massachusetts man, has been fired from his sales position at Brookstone (Logan Airport location) in Boston allegedly for telling a female manager who was imposing her lesbian views on him that his Christian faith says homosexuality is wrong. Apparently, Mr. Vadala was fired – in America – for expressing an opinion – in America!
How far this nation has descended. Anyone who believes in the Lord Jesus Christ as part of the Holy Trinity cannot deny that homosexuality is a total abomination in the sight of God. Firing a person for engaging in freedom of speech – in particular, defending his Christian faith – is tantamount to declaring hostility toward all Christians. Allowing people to affirmatively express their abominations to Christians but not allowing Christians to respond openly in defense of their faith or to freely exercise their religion not only violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution but violates equal protection.
The United States Constitution does not recognize homosexual marriages but does adamantly protect the free exercise of religion, Christianity in particular, under the very first amendment. While I understand that Brookstone is not a government entity and not necessarily subject to constitutional limitations on the exercise of private rights and privileges, one would think the spirit of the Constitution would be honored by those who believe in it – most especially in Massachusetts. Does Brookstone believe in the U.S. Constitution?
Reverse discrimination is just as invidious as "discrimination." Private suppression of free speech is as bad as government suppression and censorship. The behavior you are tolerating is the horrific hatred that this country seeks to ascend from. It is hate in response to perceived hate. Hate solves nothing, and acts of hatred engender more hatred. It is prolific. History cannot be changed and "affirmative" policies cannot undo what has occurred, but "affirmative" policies can polarize the body politic and create more resistance to the very goals to which you aspire. The free marketplace of ideas will test the viability of ideas and help to educate and resolve a voting public. Censorship, extortion and deception never do. Mr. Vadala's freedom of religious expression and political expression should not only be tolerated but protected.
It is my hope that Brookstone will investigate the termination of Mr. Vadala at Logan Airport. In particular, the "investigation" should be investigated. What fact finding took place before the termination? Was Mr. Vadala given a due-process right to respond before a decision was made? Was he given the right to confront his accuser and cross examine her? Was her word simply accepted but not his? Was he afforded the opportunity to present his own witnesses and evidence as to who committed the provocation? Was he given a presumption of innocence? But most importantly – even if all the accusations are true, can his termination be justified? From the tactics employed to terminate him and the labels attached to him without the necessary factual support to constitute "conclusions," Mr. Vadala's termination seems to be an emotional reaction on the part of someone who is ardently pro-homosexual.
If freedom of speech, equal protection and due process are useless concepts, then why have so many for so long been willing to die to protect them? If you agree that they are essential to quality of life, then shouldn't you employ them privately?
If we are to be the land of the free and home of the brave, then we must be brave enough to let our brethren be free to speak out.
T.W. Cresswell
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

An Obamanoid, Zombizoid Record You Can Believe In

Posted by Miguel Diocuore Ph.D. on Wednesday, November 04, 2009 3:50:21 PM

An Obamanoid, Zombizoid Record You Can Believe In


''Quite a record for 287 days: All that, and a Nobel Peace Prize, too.''


It’s been a year since a healthy majority of American voters elected Barack Obama to change the world. Which is precisely what he’s doing.
Like many people who desperately want to see the country take a more progressive course, I quibble and quarrel with some of President Obama’s actions. I wish he’d been tougher on Wall Street, quicker to close Guantanamo, more willing to investigate Bush-era excesses, bolder in seeking truly universal health care. I wish he could summon more of the rhetorical magic that spoke so compellingly to the better angels of our nature.
But he’s a president, not a Hollywood action hero. Most of my frustration is really with the process of getting anything done in Washington, which is not something Obama can unilaterally change, nimbly circumvent or blithely ignore. One thing the new administration clearly did not anticipate was that Republicans in Congress would be so consistently and unanimously obstructionist—or that Democrats would have to be introduced to the alien concept of party discipline. It took the White House too long to realize that bipartisanship is a tango and that there’s no point in dancing alone.
Step back for a moment, though, and look at Obama’s record so far. His biggest accomplishment has been keeping the worst financial and economic crisis in decades from turning into another Great Depression. Yes, the $787 billion stimulus package was messy, but most economists believe it was absolutely necessary—and some believe it should have been even bigger. Yes, Obama continued the Bush-era policy of showering irresponsible financial institutions with billions in public funds. Yes, the administration bailed out the auto industry—and we actually heard the president of the United States reassure Americans that General Motors warranties would be honored.
But these and other actions convinced the financial markets that the White House would do anything to avoid a complete meltdown. The economy grew at a rate of 3.5 percent in the third quarter and, while unemployment may not yet have peaked, the odds of a strong and fairly swift recovery have greatly improved. http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20091102_a_record_you_can_believe_in/
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Being stupid all the way to the bank

Posted by Miguel Diocuore Ph.D. on Wednesday, November 04, 2009 3:49:37 PM

What Michael Moore thinks capitalism is


''Michael Moore incoherently argues that we need to replace “capitalism” with a true American system: “Democracy.” Ironically, a true capitalist system is the best and most pure system of the democratic ideal.''

Love him or hate him, or his films, there’s no question about where Michael Moore stands ideologically: Left-wing, “progressive,” populist, socialist. In some ways Moore’s newest film, “Capitalism: A Love Story,” muddies the water. But in the end, all it really shows is that Michael Moore doesn’t actually know what capitalism is.
Apparently, Moore thinks that capitalism is a system where the government bails out and controls the financial sector, or one whereby a few rich people dominate the entire structure and keep everyone else poor. Both are leftist caricatures that have nothing in common with capitalism properly construed, as best described by its first and best exponent, Adam Smith.
So Moore’s film needs a new title. Perhaps something like, “Corporatism: What the Left Thinks Capitalism Is.”
Watching Michael Moore rail against corporate bailouts in the early scenes of his latest movie, a free marketeer might wonder if perhaps the film maker has inadvertently blundered into the truth. Among other things, he rips apart the notion that government and big business partnering up is good for the little guy. About half-way through the movie, I actually caught myself thinking: Do Michael Moore and disciples of Adam Smith actually agree? http://www.visandvals.org/A_Review_of_Michael_Moore_s_Capitalism.php
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Pelosi's 'final solution'

Posted by Miguel Diocuore Ph.D. on Wednesday, November 04, 2009 3:48:43 PM

Pelosi's 'final solution'


''This is the natural tendency of government to manipulate the will and finances of the people to serve its own ends, and thwarting this tendency is the very reason our Constitution was penned. Given that this administration has sought to circumvent constitutional measures by using fear and vilification of George W. Bush, we should no longer be surprised by their power grabs.''

Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., recently expressed his belief that Madam Speaker Pelosi is "not happy" with him because of his opinion that there should be a prohibition of federally financed abortions. Pelosi knows that Americans are against this federal abortion funding initiative, yet her party is wheeling a Trojan horse into this health-care bill, and Rep. Stupak, a member of her own army, is standing on the ramparts to warn of the threat. This is treason in the eyes of Pelosi.
But as Americans, what do we see? A principled politician. That's quite an oxymoron, but we are witnessing an elected man defend his convictions in spite of party intimidation, imminent excommunication and potential crucifixion. If only more politicians would stand up for what they believe, or more importantly, what their constituency believes, the federal abortion initiative would have left the table long ago.
The abortion-funding issue is not about Roe v. Wade. It is not about poor women who need but can't afford abortions. It is about federal tax dollars and a dark ideology.
It is, at least to some extent, about using those dollars to legitimize and support a morally questionable practice that keeps our country divided. It is an unwanted mandate that all Americans pay for something that most do not want, because it is irresponsible, expensive and could be a stepping stone to abortion as a form of birth control.
And of course, Pelosi and her ilk are looking to figuratively spit in the face of Christian America, and say, "You're paying to kill these fetuses whether you like it or not." http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114882
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Kid wacko, enviro-wacko, are you nuts?

Posted by Miguel Diocuore Ph.D. on Wednesday, November 04, 2009 2:46:13 PM

Kid wacko, enviro-wacko, are you nuts?


''Wanted for theft of human gray matter''

It's so obvious to everyone now that even the enviro-wackos dropped the global warming rhetoric and now use the term climate change to cover their butts regardless how warm or cold it gets (which clearly shows the enviro-wackos are clueless what's happening with the weather). Except during Solar Cycle 24 when they insisted carbon dioxide emissions were causing the Earth to warm, Venus and Mars were inexplicably warming, too even though there were no humans on either planet (that we know about). There are tons of evidence to prove that smoking will kill you, but not from cancer. And, more specifically, not from "second hand smoke." The Second hand smoke theory was created to explain how, if smoking causes lung cancer, people who have never smoked get lung cancer. Bad people blow smoke on good people.

When you pick up a pack of cigarettes, any pack of cigarettes, you'll see the government's warning label clearly printed on the side of the package or flip top box. The warning label's changed several times over the last three or four decades. The first government-mandated label was true, but it wasn't scary enough for the anti-smokers. The label said: "Smoking may be has hazardous to your health." That statement was absolutely correct. But, it didn't make anyone quit. Anti-smoking lobbyists got the warning changed to read: "Smoking can cause lung cancer." That statement was blatantly false. No scientific evidence has ever existed that conclusively, or even circumstantially, proves that smoking causes lung cancer. And, none exists today. The anti-smoking crowd, with as much real science behind them as Al Gore who continued to argue that we are experiencing global warming even though the mountains of hard science show the planet is cooling. http://www.newswithviews.com/Ryter/jon299.htm
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WE THE PEOPLE must

Posted by Miguel Diocuore Ph.D. on Wednesday, November 04, 2009 2:45:38 PM

WE THE PEOPLE must


''All too many Americans for all too long have been conditioned to think of “the federal government” in terms of “higher” and “lower” levels as on some crude bureaucratic organizational chart: with Washington, D.C. at the top, the States and THE PEOPLE at the bottom.''

The more things change, the more they remain the same. In 1814, in an address to the House of Representatives, Daniel Webster observed that
public credit, the last reliance of government, * * * does not exist. This is a state of things calling for the soberest counsels, and yet it seems to meet only the wildest speculations. Nothing is talked of but banks, and a circulating paper medium, and exchequer notes, and the thousand other contrivances which ingenuity, vexed and goaded by the direst necessity, can devise, with the vain hope of giving value to mere paper. All these things are not revenue, nor do they produce it. * * * [N]or is there a device more shallow or more mischievous, than to pour forth new floods of paper without credit as a remedy for the evils which paper without credit has already created.[1]
Even earlier, Thomas Jefferson had predicted the reason for such a sorry state of affairs:
From the conclusion of the [W]ar [of Independence] we shall be going down hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights.[2]
Jefferson was all too prescient. Ever since his day, the political class has looked elsewhere than to the American people for support—and always found it from the financial class. http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin200.htm
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Seasons

Posted by Miguel Diocuore Ph.D. on Wednesday, November 04, 2009 2:45:03 PM

Seasons


“To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:” – Ecclesiastes 3:1

Now, in November of 2009, blustery winds of change are wreaking havoc in America – stripping away the glory of a nation whose season in the sun has also come and gone. It too is hard to watch but comes as no real surprise. Though our myopic tendencies make it difficult to imagine, the world will carry on in spite of its absence, influence and ideals – with or without the Stars and Stripes that so many have bravely fought and died for through the years. Friends overseas will note its passing and some will morn, but all will eventually move on assessing for history how it all came to pass.

I doubt we will witness ascending spirits or heavenly voices when America gives up the ghost. People will take out the trash like they always have and rush back to work after lunch much like they did at that hospital 28 years ago. And some of us will give thanks for the rights, freedoms, privileges, opportunities, peace and prosperity God provided us for a time as they are unceremoniously taken away before our eyes while the world carries on undeterred by our unfortunate loss. http://www.newswithviews.com/PaulProctor/proctor191.htm
Tags: Seasons  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Is Hollywood leaning pro-life?

Posted by Miguel Diocuore Ph.D. on Wednesday, November 04, 2009 2:44:26 PM

Is Hollywood leaning pro-life?


''Mention was made in the episode that pro-lifers now outnumber pro-aborts, a reference to the May Gallup poll finding 51 percent of Americans now call themselves pro-life while only 42 percent say they are pro-choice. Is "Law & Order" trying to boost ratings by emulating Fox?''

When I read NBC's "Law & Order" was airing an episode last week "ripped from the headlines" of an abortionist shot in church, i.e., Dr. George Tiller, I, of course, anticipated the plot would not go well for pro-lifers. The most I expected was milliseconds of fairness with pro-abortion clichés ruling the hour.
My, was I surprised. I could have written that script. The episode wasn't even balanced. It was outright pro-life, not that I mind.
If you haven't seen the episode, you should. Sans commercials it is only 42 minutes long.
Briefly, the story begins with a pro-life renegade shooting a late-term abortionist in church. Detectives eventually find the shooter, portrayed as angry and not typical of the loving pro-lifers who routinely picket the abortionist's mill.
We learn one of the detectives was born prematurely after his mother threw herself down the stairs, providing an anti-abortion "It's a Wonderful Life" moment to reflect.
Open your eyes to the ugliness inside the abortion industry with "Lime 5: Exploited by Choice"
One reason the shooter is compelled to kill Dr. Benning when he does is because Benning is scheduled the following day to kill a 28-week preborn baby who has a non-life-threatening skin condition.
The judge hearing the murder case agrees to allow testimony attempting to justify the shooter's actions.
A nurse describes Dr. Benning killing a born baby by stabbing him in the nape of the neck after he slipped out before the abortion could be completed. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114933
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The bottom-dwellers at the U.N.

Posted by Miguel Diocuore Ph.D. on Wednesday, November 04, 2009 2:43:19 PM

The bottom-dwellers at the U.N.


''In the U. S. Army, you get punished for calling a "rifle" a "gun." Likewise in the American Navy if you call a "ship" a "boat." In the Israeli military, it feels like the remains of the Second Temple are dumped upon you if, in training, you do anything which, translated into real combat, might endanger enemy civilians.''

In a race among these three, which do you suppose will arrive at rock bottom first: the Democratic Party, the Norwegian Nobel Committee or the United Nations?
Well, the Norwegian Nobel Committee can't do anything self-destructive for another year, so I guess it's between the Democrats and the U.N. Most of you would probably vote for the Democrats; what with "Cap-and-Trade," "Cash-for-Clunkers," stumbling along behind their leader to embrace the most utterly disastrous economic system ever practiced, etc. Before you vote, however, please hear and heed my little campaign speech for the United Nations.
The "Chorus Girl's Lament" is rather cute: one chorus girl complains to the other, "Not only did he lie about his yacht; he made me row!" There's nothing cute about the U.N.'s version. It's the bludgeoning instrument tucked inside the Goldstone Report, due to be considered by the General Assembly this week. The Goldstone Report incredibly takes aim at the one country that, above all others in history, takes the most self-sacrificing care to avoid harming enemy civilians. Goldstone then discolors that country's most recent act of self-defense until it resembles not an attempt to stop Hamas' rocket-rain coming in from Gaza, but rather the Rape of Nanking.
WND's Aaron Klein gets to the heart of Israel's decline in his book, "The Late Great State of Israel: How Enemies Within and Without Threaten the Jewish Nation's Survival"
The country, of course, is Israel. Listen to Col. Richard Kemp, former commander of British forces in Afghanistan and many violent elsewheres: "During Operation Cast Lead [the Israeli invasion of Gaza] the Israel Defense Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare." Col. Kemp goes on to stress that Israel's enemies deliberately use civilians as shields, knowing full well Israeli soldiers are forbidden to shoot in such situations even if that jeopardizes their own lives. Everybody who knows the truth about Israel knows this, but it's good to hear it so emphatically from a non-Jewish military expert with a British accent. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114879
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The truth about journalists' bias

Posted by Miguel Diocuore Ph.D. on Wednesday, November 04, 2009 2:42:42 PM

The truth about journalists' bias


I made the New York Times last week. It even ran my picture. My mother would be proud. Unfortunately, the story was critical. It said, "Critics have leaped on Mr. Stossel's speaking engagements as the latest evidence of conservative bias on the part of Fox."
Which "critics" had "leaped"? The reporter mentioned Rachel Maddow. I wouldn't think her criticism newsworthy, but Times reporters may use MSNBC as their guide to life. He also quoted an "associate professor of journalism" who said my speeches were "'pretty shameful' by traditional journalistic standards." All this because I spoke at an event for Americans for Prosperity (AFP), a "conservative advocacy group."
It is odd that this is a news story. In August, AFP hired me to do the very same thing. I give the money to charity. The Times didn't call that "shameful."
But in August, I worked for ABC News. Now, I work for Fox. Hmmm.
It reminds me of something that happened earlier in my career.
I was one of America's first TV consumer reporters. I approached the job with an attitude. If companies ripped people off, I would embarrass them on TV – and demand that government do something. (I now regret the latter – the former was a good thing.)
Milton Friedman's classic "Capitalism and Freedom" explains how individual liberty can only thrive when accompanied by economic liberty
I clearly had a point of view: I was a crusader out to punish corporate bullies. My colleagues liked it. I got job offers. I won 19 Emmys. I was invited to speak at journalism conferences. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114936
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obamacare is worse than terrorism

Posted by Miguel Diocuore Ph.D. on Wednesday, November 04, 2009 2:41:58 PM

Obamacare is worse than terrorism


''The long-term effects of socialized medicine – even when practiced in advanced and sophisticated Western countries – always leads inevitably to death, lots of death and lots of suffering. None of this, by the way, diminishes in any respect, the seriousness of the threat Americans face from terrorists. That threat is very real. And few have been as outspoken and aggressive in pointing out those threats as I have been.

Three cheers for Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C.''
In a blistering critique of the socialized health-care bill expected to be passed by the House this Friday, she said: "I believe we have more to fear from the potential of that bill than we do from any terrorist right now in any country."
She's fundamentally right – though she has taken a pounding from many in the media who see such rhetoric as inflammatory.
In fact, she has clarified the issue for many Americans.
Terrorists can only kill some of us.
But unconstitutional legislation that corrupts the very soul of America can kill our spirit. It can kill the rule of law. It can kill the notion that the will of the people is pre-eminent, not the will of some vaunted elite.
That's what she said. And that's what she meant. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114949
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What really caused the Great Depression

Posted by Miguel Diocuore Ph.D. on Wednesday, November 04, 2009 7:25:53 AM

What really caused the Great Depression


''The bottom line is that the idea that government bureaucrats have enough knowledge to manage an economy well is the height of conceit – what Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek called the "fatal conceit."''

Steve H. Hanke is a professor of Applied Economics at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and senior fellow at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., and writes frequently for Globe Asia and Forbes magazine. Professor Hanke starts off his "Hu versus Sarkozy" article (Globe Asia, November 2009) with a warning. There is no more reliable rule than the 95 percent rule: 95 percent of what you read about economics and finance is either wrong or irrelevant. The article contrasts the Chinese versus the French responses to the financial crisis, but the major focus is on economic myths.
Hanke says that the most repeated statement about the cause of the U.S. Great Depression is that it was caused by the October 1929 stock market crash. How could that be? By April 1930, the stock market had recovered to its pre-crash level. What is not taught in history books is the Great Depression was caused by a massive government failure. The most important part of that failure were the actions by the Federal Reserve Bank that led to the contraction of the money supply by 25 percent. Then, in the name of saving jobs, Congress enacted the Smoot-Hawley Act in June 1930, which increased U.S. tariffs by more than 50 percent. Other nations retaliated and world trade collapsed. U.S. unemployment rose from 8 percent in 1930 to 25 percent in 1933. In 1932, the Herbert Hoover administration and a Democratic Congress imposed the largest tax increase in U.S. history, raising the top tax rate on income from 25 percent to 63 percent. The Roosevelt administration followed these destructive policies with New Deal legislation that massively regulated the economy and extended the Great Depression to after World War II.
Have today's politicians and their economic advisers learned anything from yesteryear's policy that turned what would have been a short, sharp downturn in the economy into a 16-year affair? The answer is very little. Professor Hanke argues that the chief enabler of both the Great Depression and our latest economic downturn is the Federal Reserve Bank, who sees itself as America's systemic risk regulator. This is the world upside down, Hanke explains: The Federal Reserve is the systemic risk.
Don't miss Ron Paul's latest best-selling book, in which he urges citizens and elected officials alike to "End the Fed"
How about a bit of history? Between 1787 and 1930, our nation has seen both mild and severe economic downturns, sometimes called panics, that have ranged from one to seven years. During that interval, there was no thought that Congress or the president should intervene in the economy to enact stimulus packages, jobs programs or massive corporate handouts. Probably, the reason that no one thought to do so was that there was no constitutional authority to do so. It took the Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt administrations to massively and unconstitutionally intervene in the economy and, with the help of a frightened, derelict U.S. Supreme Court, turn what might have been a two- or three-year sharp downturn into our longest depression. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114878
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Christmas carols to be required in public schools?

Posted by Miguel Diocuore Ph.D. on Wednesday, November 04, 2009 7:25:00 AM

Christmas carols to be required in public schools?


''The initiative requires public elementary and secondary schools to provide "opportunities to its pupils for listening to or performing Christmas music at any appropriate time of year" and allows Christmas music to be incorporated into art and social studies curricula and for cultural enrichment during school assemblies.''

A California substitute teacher is petitioning for a ballot initiative that would ensure public-school students are allowed to hear or perform Christmas music during the holiday season.
The state attorney general's office has given Merry Susan Hyatt and her brother David Joseph Hyatt permission to begin collecting signatures for their "Freedom to Present Christmas Music in Public School Classrooms or Assemblies" initiative.
Merry Hyatt, a substitute teacher from Redding, said she was troubled during a Christmas celebration at a school where she worked. She told the New America Foundation, "We were having Christmas without Jesus."
"This is to make sure that we are allowed to have Christmas carols, and no school board member or principal is going to tell us, 'No, you may not play 'Hark the Herald Angels Sing' in your classroom," she told KTXL-TV News.
The Hyatts must collect 433,971 signatures from registered voters by March 29, 2010, to get the measure on California's ballot next June or November. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114934
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12345678910…566567Next »