March 31, 2021
An argument erupted on Facebook with a smug atheist. First, Bob Clasen says:
Religious people have done bad things, therefore all religion is nonsense. True or false? Instead of "religious peopleâ€ substitute any other kind of people, like scientific or political or philosophical or sports or educational or entertainment industry or musicians.
Columnist Byron York writes today at Townhall.com about Joe Biden having delusions of wanting to be Franklin Roosevelt. he includes some background information.
In early March, President Joe Biden met with a group of seven historians in the East Room of the White House. One topic of conversation: Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal. "He'd like to be [FDR]," Axios' Mike Allen reported in an inside account of the meeting.
Historian Michael Beschloss, who attended the meeting, reportedly said that FDR, along with Lyndon Johnson, are "the past century's closest analogues" to what Biden hopes to do. "Beschloss said the parallels include the New Deal economic relief that Franklin Roosevelt brought in 1933, which saved the country from the Depression and chaos," reported Axios.
END OF QUOTE
Well, one thing FDR did we can be sure Biden doesn't want to do is make an Army veteran who uncovered defense contractor scandals in WWII as his Vice President and successor. During WWII, WWI veteran artillery officer and little known U.S. Senator from Missouri Harry S. Truman, on his own time and driving his own car, drove into Virginia and visited defense plants interviewing workers. There Truman discovered some factories were using sub-grade armoring for military contracts, thus endangering the lives of the soldiers and sailors fighting the war and also cheating the taxpayers. This lead to FDR, visibly ill in 1944, deciding to make harry Truman his Vice Presidential nominee, a situation which could lead to Truman either being elected President in 1948 or perhaps becoming President when FDR resigned or died in office. As most of us know, both these realities happened with the death of Roosevelt in 1945. I say "most of us know" because last week I was speaking to a young man doing customer service for a financial institution who had to ask me my birthday (in 1947) and he then stated, "Oh, you were born before the end of WWII." I had to give him a history lesson about the war ending in 1945.
Another thing that Franklin Roosevelt did happened earlier when he was in the Woodrow Wilson administration. This was brought to the general public by former Newsweek liberal journalist Jonathan Alter. FDR set up a sting to entice and entrap U.S. Navy sailors in homosexual acts.
Wikipedia has it detailed under the title "Newport Sex Scandal" which states that FDR was formally rebuked by the U.S. Congress. The scandal almost ended his political career.
The History Collection also has a long and detailed article about the scandal with sailors confined for months without trial to coerce them to confess.
The Newport Sex Scandal was an investigation into illicit sexual behavior of Navy personnel. Over 15 men went through court martial proceedings for sexual encounters with undercover investigators. Linked to the investigation was the Assistant Secretary of the Navy and future President of the United States Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Reportedly on March 19, 1919, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, signed off on opening an investigation into the "immoral conductâ€ reportedly happening at the Army and Navy YMCA in Newport.
END OF QUOTE
Of course, FDR later in WWII would seize property of Japanese-Americans and confine them to inland camps. This was done at the same time a number of their grown children were volunteering to fight in Europe or to become code breakers and translators for the U.S. military, training at Camp Savage and Ft. Snelling, both in the Twin Cities area. This is shown in the documentary film "MIS (Military Intelligence Service) Human Secret Weapon by Junichi Suzuki. It was President Truman who called them Human Secret Weapon. Amazon.com has a description of this film and Variety has a review where they state:
"Certainly, he tells viewers a lot they likely didnâ€™t know: for instance, that the Military Intelligence Service program was under way well before the U.S. actually entered WWII, or that, toward the end of the war, MIS soldiers helped save Okinawan citizens from committing suicide during the U.S. invasion."
Besides Biden's age, I believe Biden is also a produc of school books that glorified FDR and left out a lot of history that was kept as military secrets until fifty years after WWII. Even with the best of mental clarity that Biden has been taught a view of Franklin Roosevelt that is all but comic book- like in its simplicity. Biden may find that trying to be an FDR/Superman clone will be a lot more challenging that the simpler version he was taught about. Some of you may remember a story I wrote about the FDR Memorial in Washington that features Roosevelt wearing a huge cape (like Batman) to cover up his use of a wheelchair. When physically challenged Americans paid for a sculpture of FDR in a wheelchair to be placed just outside the official government monument, then-President Bill Clinton quickly agreed to the additional statue that honors the arguably most accomplished physically challenged American. Meanwhile, the Democrats are denouncing slave holder Thomas Jefferson, among others. Guess who requested the Jefferson Memorial be built in Washington? It was FDR himself.
The rate or time lapse involved in this "slowingâ€ of heat loss is problematic to the paradigm that says CO2 drives global warming. Professor Nasif Nahle has mathematically assessed the rate at which heat is retained by CO2 molecules; his work was endorsed by the Faculty of Physics of the University of Nuevo Leon (Mexico). Nahle found the "mean free pathâ€ for a quantum wave to pass through the atmosphere before colliding with a CO2 molecule is about 33 meters (Nahle, 2011a). Such a wide chasm between molecular collisions would appear to undermine a visualization of CO2 functioning like a blanket does.
Even more saliently, Nahle determined that the rate at which CO2 molecules can retain heat at the surface may only last about 0.0001 of a second (Nahle, 2011b). If heat-loss is slowed down at a rate of 0.0001 of a second by CO2 molecules, the atmospheric CO2 concentration â€“ whether itâ€™s 300 ppm or 400 ppm â€“ effectively doesnâ€™t matter. The time lapse differential would be immaterial for either concentration. Consequently, Nahle concludes "carbon dioxide has not an effect on climate changes or warming periods on the Earthâ€.
When Muhammed seized Mecca the first thing he did was destroy all the statuary. It's what you do when you want to remake a culture; take down the heroes and icons of a nation and replace them with - Greta Thurnberg.
23,000 lb. Statue of Greta Thunberg Installed at British University
For more from me on memorials see here.
Who are the science deniers? (But I have to confess, Geraghty seems to me to misrepresent the CNN reporter. She denied that "gender identity" could be known at birth--not that "sex" could be. If she was defining "gender identity" as the gender [or sex] the person would own as his or hers as he or she grew older, particularly as that could change back and forth over time, then what she said was correct. The trouble is that "gender identity" has taken over from "sex" so as to cancel the significance of the latter.)
CNN News Writer Denies the Biological Reality of Sex and Birth
But Cal would this same reporter agree with the notion that one can assume a race role by an act of will or an emotional empathy? After all, racial culture is far more a matter of volition than is the sex role. There is absolutely nothing to prevent white people from becoming "African American" in terms of speech patterns, diet, musical interests, behavior, etc. or for a black person to adopt "white culture". But that is anathema and when it happens it's considered something bad, like "stolen valor" is (when someone lies about being a military hero). Isn't "gender" bending a form of stolen valor? Of race theft? Why is it considered good and fair and proper when the other examples are not?
David Redfern posted a meme on Facebook about, well, here it is:
Ricky Gervais on Muhammad cartoon controversy: â€˜Blasphemy? F***ing Blasphemy? Itâ€™s 2021 for f***s sake.â€™
Therein lies the West's problem David; we THINK this is past but it's not in a large swath of the world.Too many in the Western World believe we are all just alike and that is far from the truth. It's why so many on the leftern side of things want to bring Muslims into our countries; they think they are just the same as we, just a little bit darker and eating different food. They don't understand there are large differences in how they think compared to how we think. A Western man sees a pretty girl and thinks "I'm glad to have seen her" while a Muslim man sees one and thinks "that infidel harlot!" and perhaps tries to rape her for her sins.
Agree entirely, other than I don't think it's the West's problem. I think the west is the answer, just not the route we're travelling at the moment.
We have largely eliminated 'casual' barbarism by enacting laws to protect the individual, no matter their race, religion or colour. Quite an accomplishment in, probably, less than 200 years.
The Muslim faith is embalmed in segregation, to the extent they discriminate against their own depending on their interpretation of their faith. Nor do I mean extremists, the Sunni and Shia sects are often pitted against one another.
The faiths casual barbarism is also legendary; stoning women victims of rape to death, accepting political violence as a legitimate solution to problems; taking juveniles as wives; accepting that female war captives as slaves etc.
And yet in the 200 years the west has taken to eliminate these appalling violations of the individual, the Muslim faith has barely budged in it's approach to humanity.
As for all the 'peaceful' Muslims we all hear about but never see, they stand by and watch their brethren continue to impose their oppressive behaviours on everyone around them. Very evident in the Batley affair in Yorkshire where an RE teacher was sacked for showing his class the Charlie Hebdo images of Allah.
No condemnation of the dozens of traditionally dressed and suitably bearded men blockading the school entrance, by other Muslims. Certainly none of their wives dragging the men away because their children's education was being disrupted more than it has been already by Covid.
Nope, just the usual, ideological, male, religious zealots being allowed to disrupt a community they chose to join, and which they now want to change.
200 years of progress at risk from religious adherents.
In a different age the Christian community would be Crusading against them. Now we stand impotently by.
David I agree completely. When I said it was the "Wests Problem" I meant that it is this myopia, this unwillingness to judge, that is going to be our downfall. Islam is what it is. It started as a warrior cult, and from the very beginning expanded by the sword when it could and by infiltration and subversion when it had to. It hasn't changed. Indeed, it cannot change because the Koran is seen as written word for word by Allah (as opposed to inspired as the Jews and Christians see the Bible) and how do you argue with passages that tell you to terrorize the infidel? If God himself wrote that you don't. So Islam won't change. The problem is now the West thinks people are people and that we all want the same things and that just isn't true. There are those who want to die killing kids in a pizza parlor, for example. We don't have that in the West except under very rare instances involving mental health issues.
The difference between the origins of the Quran and the Bible is an extremely good point. One I admit I hadn't really considered, which betrays my lack of religious education.
Our politicians need to abandon the insane drive for globalism. Mankind is tribalist by nature, forcing round pegs into square holes just will not work.
And whilst there is always a need for immigration and emigration, it needs to be properly controlled. Those fleeing from persecution and war have their own obligation to sort out their own communities and politics.
David Redfern, I would heartily agree.
Christianity and Judaism split over the interpretation of certain passages in the Old Testament. Jews believed they were referring to Israel the country and the Christians said these passages referred to the person of the Messiah. The Jews and Christians could argue about this because both sides agreed the Bible was inspired and not dictated, and as such was open to distortions and misinterpretations. The Koran cannot be seen that way, as it is considered to have been dictated by Allah to Muhammed word for word. As a result you cannot reform anything; there is no justification for disagreeing with anything there.
I couldn't agree more; Globalism is a terrible idea, a noose around Mankind's neck. Everything that makes life worth living stems from the panorama of cultures and traditions and experiences. Globalism is an attempt to straightjacket everyone into a bland, formless, colorless existence. If you want to see how it works just look at the old Soviet Empire; everyone wore the same clothes, used the same products, lived colorless, empty lives. It's the inevitable outcome of trying to make everyone equal; in the end everyone becomes alike, and dies of boredom.
And you're right; those seeking refuge have duties. Part of the problem in Central America (and in North Africa) is that there is no need to reform the homelands of these peoples. The "problem" can be outsourced to the West. So if there are major crime problems in Honduras, why take the risk of fighting it when it's easier to just send everyone away? Nothing will ever change as long as that is happening. Meanwhile, why should people who want "a better life" be given priority over the needs of the host nation? Or over the desires of those who cannot make the journey? I mean, why can't a citizen of Rwanda stroll into the U.S., if a Honduran can?
In the end unrestrained immigration means the ruin of nations. We've seen it happen multiple times. India is one example; they were forever being settled by newcomers, and they were in a constant state of war. There never was any sort of Indian nation so much as a collection of states. In the end they were too busy fighting each-other to resist anyone else. And that continues today with fighting between Muslims and Hindus in both India proper and with Pakistan and Bengladesh. We saw it with Rome, which was destroyed by a peaceful migration of Germanic Peoples into the Empire (which was peaceful and prosperous). The Germans pulled the western empire apart. We saw it with the Germanic invasions of Britain; the Britons were driven out of their own country by the invading Angles and Saxons. The Japanese were not the original inhabitants of Japan, but rather a caucasian people called the Ainu. They are pretty much gone now. Ditto the American Indians.
In recent years we've seen it in places like Lebanon, which was a healthy, vibrant society until the Palestinians came in as peaceful refugees and took over. Now Lebanon is pretty much an Islamic hell-hole and the unique culture of Lebanon is largely in ruins.
All immigration is not good. And some cultures are worth preserving, and some aren't. Western civilization most definitely is worth saving. But it will die if it cannot find the will to defend itself against this onslaught of barbarism.
Biden Has Released More Than 30,000 Illegals Into the Country Just Since January
Biden swore this oath; " I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" In what universe is he faithfully executing the office? There are clear laws on the books which he is simply ignoring. His job is to enforce laws passed by Congress - not make his own.
Why do you think they call progressives dopes?
D.C. Mayor Shares Heat for 'Preventing Auto Theft' Video Amid Silence on Muhammed Anwar's Death
Last October, French teacher Samuel Paty was beheaded on Paris streets by a Muslim who was angry that Paty had shown his students cartoons of Muhammad. In January 2015, Muslim jihadists murdered 12 at the offices of French satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo as a response to its having published Muhammad images. The same year in Garland, Texas, two Muslims motivated likewise attacked a "Draw Muhammadâ€ contest and shot a security guard. Now, a U.K. "Islamophobiaâ€ advisor wants to end such violence:
By instituting a Sharia law norm and making such imagesâ€™ display as unacceptable as the n-word.
If you don't understand the entire "Cancel Culture" here's a quote that might be helpful:
"In bourgeois society, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past.â€
There was a time in this country when those who advocated a
Fiat Monetary Standard were considered certifiable crackpots, monetary
quacks and dangerous interventionist
At one time, Classical Liberalism promoted the ideals found within the principles of a sound monetary unit that not only provided stability economically, but also provided for the spread of real prosperity and liberty. The cornerstone of Classical Liberalism was private property rights and the cornerstone of all private property rights was, and is sound money, money that is actual real property, solely owned by the individual who labored either by the sweat of his brow or the sharpness of his creative mind.
Such money was not owned or controlled in any significant way by government except in trust through the regulation and verification of the fineness of coinage in purity, weight and measure. Otherwise, money was the property of the individual, or legal corporation, just as any other property of which legal title may be held.
Along with the ideal of private property rights, Classical Liberalism, which could just as easily be called Jeffersonian Liberalism, promoted a confidence in the market economy, as free as possible from all interventions, especially from the government. They held, and still hold that private property rights, in all aspects, provides for the best means of production and distribution of prosperity within society with a system of economic organization organic in both concept and operation.
It was, and is, the best system to secure the broadest means of prosperity and individual protection within a society for it assigns the individual consumer the power to choose which producers provide the best quality at the lowest possible price for the consumerâ€™s needs and desires. The principles of sound money and free, unencumbered markets were just some of the foundation stones that help create this wonderful and I might add, successful experiment in the broadest spectrum of individual freedom and liberty the world had experienced: These united States of America under an mutually agreed Constitutional Compact between the people and their government.
The Founders of our country realized that the main challenge facing such a liberal system of government and society was how to control the only real danger that would ever face the country, the government itself. The goal of the Founders was to institute a government so cumbersome, so divided in function and authority that all power would be distributed between the general government and the independent State Republics; the best description could be called a Republic of Republics, functioning in a cooperative compact.more...
It's the Overton Window. They will push this radical notion that requiring proof of identity somehow discriminates against minorities then it will become the thesis and anyone arguing against it will be outside the window.
Poll: 77% Support Requiring Voters to Provide a Valid I.D. to Vote
March 30, 2021
House Democrats are moving against SpaceX.
These people can't stand to see anything happen outside of government, and can't stand to see anything that represents American exceptionalism or success.
The latest version of SpaceXâ€™s FAA launch license for the Starship suborbital test flight program, issued March 12, allows those test flights to take place "only when an FAA Safety Inspector is present at SpaceXâ€™s Boca Chica launch and landing site.â€
The change stemmed from an investigation into SpaceXâ€™s violation of that launch license during the SN8 test flight in December. SpaceX proceeded with the flight despite the FAA determining that the flight profile exceeded the maximum allowed risk to the uninvolved public for "far field blast overpressureâ€ in the event of an explosion. While the SN8 vehicle exploded upon landing, there were no reports of damage outside of the SpaceX test site.
FAA directed SpaceX to investigate the incident, delaying the flight of the next Starship prototype, SN9. That investigation included "a comprehensive review of the companyâ€™s safety culture, operational decision-making and process discipline,â€ the FAA said in a Feb. 2 statement.
The FAA cleared SpaceX to proceed with launches, with SN9 and SN10 launching and landing â€” and both exploding upon or shortly after landing â€” on Feb. 2 and March 3, respectively. Neither caused any damage outside of the SpaceX test site.
The FAAâ€™s response to SpaceXâ€™s launch license violation, including the lack of any penalties beyond the investigation, prompted criticism from two key members of Congress. In a March 25 letter to FAA Administrator Steve Dickson, Reps. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) and Rick Larsen (D-Wash.) sought to "register our concernsâ€ with the incident. DeFazio is chair of the House Transportation Committee and Larsen the chair of its aviation subcommittee.
"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do,
you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only
end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.â€â€“Ja
Indeed that is exactly what we have seen in this country is a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government. Because of the use of such arbitrary interpretation and therefore application, I think we should not be surprised when politicians overtly trespass against the Constitution.
The Constitution's standing in this country has been neutralized by a variety of political philosophies, none of which appear to actually embrace the principles found within the Consitution itself. Others have simply sought to render it so flexible that it no longer retains the viability of protection that they claim to support. These factions fail to see the meanings behind the principles, those both philosophical and practical. The principles, upon which the Constitution was structured, in a real sense, are neither totally static or dynamic, but both and are essential to good government and to the pursuit of happiness by the people.
This country has not seen such a critical time in our political concerns as we now face and it is primarily due to the fact that we have allowed various political ideologies to arbitrarily interpret the Constitution to fit their particular ideological points of view. Today, our country not only stands before a period of extremes, but dangerous extremes that could, with ease, erase what we have always considered as particularly and essentially the American guarantee of the individual's claim to Liberty.
Instead of a country filled with free
people, who assert their dignity through Liberty, we have become
subjected to the will of a government that sets its own parameters of
its reach and authority through the arbitrary interpretation and
application of law. Principles are no longer considered inviolate, but
are subject to the political whims of the day, whether those whims are
Liberal, Conservative, Neo-Conservativ
When any political ideology or philosophy extends an arbitrary utility
over a Constitutional principle, it does so at its own peril. I say
that because, as we see with the Biden Administration,
One amazing fact is that the various political ideologies always seem to support some degree of Constitutional stretch when it follows their own particular political agenda, but when an opposing political agenda stretches beyond the bounds of the Constitution there is an uproar and condemnation.
The government seeks the ease of power and yet the Constitution was created to make it cumbersome to govern, thereby removing the potential for both consolidation of powers and the abuse of such powers. Checks and balances are extremely cumbersome, viewed as outdated and inapplicable in our day and age, is it any wonder that the view of foundational and inviolate principles is looked upon with such disdain? It is symptomatic of all centralized governments to seek power for it eases its ability to rule, a fact that history bears out to be true.
When we allow a very relative interpretation and application of Constitutional principles to prevail then not only will power seek the level of its own expression, but, in every case, the People will end up being the ones to eventually suffer the consequences of such relativity. Government bureaucrat's prize relativity, for it removes restraints regarding the application of government statute over the principles designed to constrain such powers.
government cannot do anything unless we cede it the power to do so,
that includes the abridgement of our Rights. The Biden Administration
is following a path that was already well beaten when it came to power.
Granted, it has extended its power beyond anything seen since the
Today we are witness to a vast number of powerful interests, both social and economic, manipulating government to the benefit of their particular agendas, all done, of course, under the carefully crafted guise of democratic freedom. People have always clamored over the promises of politics rather than the reality of politics and politicians are all too eager to oblige such inclinations of the People thus gaining their allegiance and support. The political reality of the day however, is far too disturbing to be spoken by the majority of politicians today; it is simply not palatable to the electorate.
Currently we are
asked to "voluntarilyâ€ relinquish a great many of our Rights, in one
degree or another, for the sake of security, for so-called equity, and
any other oddly crafted cause. It is not the first time the government
has made such requests, doubtless it will not be the last, but we must
remember what we do when we allow such a license to the government.
It is easy to see that the decline of Classical Liberalism in our society is mirrored by an increased power and centralization of The State as it takes advantage of the decline of citizen action and influence. The philosophy of Classical Liberalism that once prevailed in this country has been silent for far too long and thankfully it is experiencing a revival of sorts, partly out of necessity and partly out of the utter disgust with the quandary that passes as government in this country.
Until the People openly oppose all attempts to evade the Constitutional Order then we will all continue to be in jeopardy from those who have shown no qualms at its usurpation at the expense of the People. Unless we oppose all efforts to abridge our Rights and Liberties by any government, political party or ideology then we will continue down the road where our Rights are totally contingent upon the winds of political expediency.
If the People take those vital principles for granted or if we continue to excuse them as outdated or ineffectual for our time, even though they were specifically designed to protect all of us, then why should we be surprised when the government takes advantage of our own complacency as we readily cede such power and grant such license to those are only too willing to accept a power with far less restraint then is ordered by the Constitution.
Lord Deben aka John Selwyn Gummer, the chief Architect of the Climate Change Committee (CCC) demands authoritarian command to force people to comply to his climate demands.
John Selwyn Gummer also happens to own a lucrative Climate Consulting business which would benefit enormously from such a move.
This is the worst type of Crony Capitalism. The CCC must be dissolved and it's crackpot and evil ambitions to enslave every member of the public to it's nonsensical ambitions eliminated.
Even if you vehemently agree with the Climate Change narrative wholeheartedly,
Only Authoritarian Rule can Deliver Netzero: Lord Devon Admits
Re: Income Tax vs. Tariffs
The Cato Institute and Elizabeth Warren are both full of crap.
Before Woodrow Wilsonâ€™s implementation of the income tax, the entire U.S. govt. was paid by tariffs. The original income tax was implemented to "only tax the rich.â€
Since then, who really writes the tax laws ? Do you think that the tax laws are written by the door knobs in Congress ? The tax laws are written by the big campaign donors, handed to the door knobs, and passed into law. The average citizen and Joe Schmoo have no access to these preferential tax treatments. Moreover, the big campaign donors assure that the IRS and other tax authorities slow walk anything that the big donors donâ€™t want. The tax burden shifts onto the small guy.
Admittedly the unfortunate Smoot-Haley tariffs were applied during the vulnerable years of the Great Depression. The incipient cause of the 1929 Stock Market Crash was the Great Flood of 1927 ( an Extreme Weather event). It was further exacerbated by a generation of European working age men lost to the trenches of WW-I, plus the Dust Bowl which reached its depths in 1934 ( the TRUE "hottest year on recordâ€).
Tariffs at the current period of relative financial stability do several positive things:
1) They encourage manufacturers (foreign and domestic) to locate manufacturing here.
2) Tariffs can be selective. Say, no tariffs on citrus crops or other foods which we desire in the winter and will aid Central America to keep their people employed in their own nations.
3) On an ongoing basis we donâ€™t see how much of the income tax burden the small guy really pays. Big guys can dodge it. With tariffs, the cost is more readily obvious and big guys share the same interests as the small guy. Hammer govt. down to size and thereby reduce tariffs over time. Starve the beast.
The Great Depression was caused in no small part by bad monetary policy on the part of the Federal Reserve. Through the '20's they had a loose fiscal policy, allowing the currency to inflate and thus triggering a boom. But at the end of the '20's they suddenly contracted the money supply. This was likely done to slow the economy so it wouldn't "overheat" and it had the desired effect; with the loss of liquidity there wound up being a stock market crash and bank runs.
The M1 money supply decreased by no less than 25% The M2 contracted by 30%. (The M2 money supply includes all cash, checking deposits, and convertible money, as opposed to simple cash as in M1.)
Smoot-Hawley was a mistake, but not because tariffs are bad but because it was a terrible idea to raise ANY taxes during such a financial crisis. The Depression of 1921 ended quite quickly (despite being every bit as bad as the Great Depression in terms of financial destructiveness) because of major tax cuts made by the Harding and Coolidge Administrations. The first cut in November of '21 reduced marginal tax rates by 13.8%. The second in June of '24 reduced rates another 7.5%. Couple this with an inflationary monetary policy and the stage was set for the "roaring twenties". The top marginal rate dropped from 76% to 25%.
It should be pointed out the Federal Reserve was created in 1913, and the Income tax imposed that same year. There would be three major depressions in the following 20 years as a result. (The post-war depression of 1919, the depression of 21, and the Great Depression.)
The immediate response to the stock market crash was to raise taxes.
Starting from .375% in 1929, the lowest rate tripled to 1.125% in 1930, and then increased again by more than 3.5 times to 4% in 1932.
Smoot-Hawley was just one piece of a very large, badly managed puzzle.
I agree; tariffs are more fair than our current system which squeezes the middle class. Everyone pays them when they buy something. And its not a direct tax, something the Founding Fathers studiously sought to avoid.
Big businesses hate tariffs. That is because they want to buy stuff as cheaply as possible and sell their products at the highest profit margin. Since the big money class pretty much owns America these days the war on tariffs will continue, and any suggestion of imposing tariffs will be met with the same hatred as suggesting we close the border or reform social security. It is a big reason why Donald Trump was so loathed by the D.C. Swamp.
A hallmark of morally immature people is that they only respect power. This comes to mind when considering "artistsâ€ who wouldnâ€™t dare lampoon Muhammad, but then pat themselves on the back for bravery after mocking Jesus and Christians. And the latest example is a Netflix cartoon that agitates against Second Amendment rights using a blasphemous portrayal of the Christ.
Let's face it: California's ruling elites aren't secularists, they're pagans, and they're explicitly at war with Christianity.
Bonfire of the Sanities: California's Deranged Revival of the Aztec gods
There has been a move to recreate the Aztec empire in California. They even want to call it Aztlan, after the mythical home of the Aztecs. This is more of this rubbish. We are creating our own barbarians to bring America down.
Question; with so many Californians being vegan how can they find priests to eat the beating hearts of their sacrifices? Wouldn't that violate the ban on eating meat? Or is there an exemption in this case?
This is why I never donate to Wikipedia. On any topic where an ideological position can be taken, they do, and it's always Left wing! They of course leave out any information which contradicts their preferred position or Left wing narrative.
Trapped in the People's Republic of Wikipedia
I know scientists like S. Fred Singer who tried to update Wikipedia and immediately had his updates removed by the leftist cabal running the operation. What value is there in a site "crowd sourced" anyway; facts are not up for public vote.
I only use Wikipedia to get source material from somewhere else.
Idle thought. Seems to me there's only one way to bring all of the networks & news providers together and that's to create an Orwellian "Government Bureau of Information" that delivers only one message - and we all know how that would end. As such, what the world needs is more free market competition that would allow water could seek its own level. And therein lies the problem as far as Bubba's concerned. Despite the fact that central banks keep dumping trillions of new money (debt) into the world, it seems to be only progressives that are willing to put that money (debt) where their mouth's are to in order to advance an agenda. Conservatives seem more concerned with profits & profit potential. Tain't like a history of the last 50-75 years won't reveal that Disney & Comcast came to control most public discourse via mergers & acquisitions - not through innovation or creation. Tain't like NBC, ABC and CBS haven't all traded hands via takeovers in the last few decades. Tain't like rightie's couldn't have bought them, and it tain't like righties couldn't have used pressure on Congress to block those takeovers. Same for print media and social media. Same for public schools and private universities. Same for religious hierarchies. Money has always been used to buy agendas that advance progressive narratives. So, until conservatives, libertarians and truth-seekers begin to buy and create entities that disseminate 'news', 'facts' and 'truth', the battle will quickly be lost. Buying politicians won't work until the rest happens first.
53 queries taking 0.2044 seconds, 240 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.