Pat Toomey of the Club for Growth reminds us that the stock market crash was not the primary culprit for the Great Depression as is often asserted:
Though many associate the Great Depression with the stock market crash on Oct. 29, 1929, the market actually rallied during the six months following Black Tuesday, while the defeat of Smoot-Hawley appeared likely. The market turned south again in April 1930 as those hopes of defeat gradually dimmed.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average sank a full 8%, from 250 to 230, over just two trading days in June 1930, in direct response to the Senate’s passage of Smoot-Hawley and Hoover’s announcement that he would sign it. Exacerbated by other flawed governmental policies, an international trade war continued to drive the market down until the Dow hit a low of 41 on July 8, 1932, having lost 89% of its value from its September, 1929 high. It would be 25 years before the market recovered its 1929 peak.
And despite the damaging effects of protectionist trade tariffs, Democrats and a few Republicans are championing punitive tarrifs and other protectionist trade measures to “level the playing field.”
Toomy notes that:
The Club for Growth is disseminating a petition advising Congress “against imposing retaliatory trade measures against China.” Like its historical counterpart, this petition is signed by 1,028 economists from the left and the right. They come from all 50 states and include four Nobel laureates, three former chairmen of the Council of Economic Advisors, former members of Congress, a former Treasury secretary, and economics professors from our country’s most prestigious universities.
If our Congressmen want to promote economic prosperity they should keep in mind Adam Smith’s observation that is still true today that:
“It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family, never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy.”
I recently wrote an article entitled RINO=G.O.P RIP. While I will agree that RINOs sometimes win local and district wide elections and sometimes state senate elections (Snowe, Specter, et al.), history has demonstrated that RINOs (rockefellar republicans) always lose national presidential elections. (the most notable examples being Ford in 76′, Bush 41′ in 92, and Dole in 96′.)
But as David Limbaugh notes in today’s Townhall.com some in the GOP establishment disagree.
Another member (not surprisingly, from the Northeast), said the party is drifting away from social conservatism but seemed to be pleased with the development. Robert Manning said, “There’s an awareness among the national committee that the issues which are of dominant importance to a broad section of voters are tending toward national security and economics and less the social-religious issues that were dominant in prior campaigns.” …Moderate and liberal Republicans have long argued that the key to GOP success is to “moderate” its positions, which means adopting social liberalism to appeal to the so-called broad center.
I have similarly heard this argument time and time again that a “moderate” has the best chance of winning in 08′. But as Limbaugh states:
But the most successful Republican coalition in ages was that built by Ronald Reagan, a pro-active, unapologetic economic, social and foreign policy conservative. He did not build his coalition by diluting his principles, but by articulating them without compromise or filter.
To those who say, that national security takes precedence over every single issue, I agree. That should be the primary obligation of any commander and chief. But let us not forget that Thomas Jefferson said that the primary obligation of government is to protect and defend individual life. There are candidates who are strong on national security and who favor protecting human life. The two positions are not mutually exclusive. And time and time again that is who the majority of Americans have voted for-pro life-traditional values-military hawks or at least those who portrayed themselves to be. Let us proceed with caution if we think that 08′ will be any different in this regard.
The New Republic’s much maligned Baghdad Diarist blogger, Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp, has admitted, finally, that he made up all of his horror stories about the troops in Iraq. Just as most in the military blogging community thought.
No wonder The New Republic is taking the week off. What will the arrogant editor of TNR, Franklin Foer, have to say for himself now? Can hardly wait.
THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned from a military source close to the investigation that Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp–author of the much-disputed “Shock Troops” article in the New Republic’s July 23 issue as well as two previous “Baghdad Diarist” columns–signed a sworn statement admitting that all three articles he published in the New Republic were exaggerations and falsehoods–fabrications containing only “a smidgen of truth,” in the words of our source.
Separately, we received this statement from Major Steven F. Lamb, the deputy Public Affairs Officer for Multi National Division-Baghdad:
An investigation has been completed and the allegations made by PVT Beauchamp were found to be false. His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims.
According to the military source, Beauchamp’s recantation was volunteered on the first day of the military’s investigation.
Michael Yon had an excellent opinion piece in Sunday’s NY Daily News,
Amid all this talk of timetables for the War in Iraq, blurred as they are by a strange lemming-like compulsion to declare the “surge” strategy a failure almost before it actually began, one deadline looms larger with each passing day: It’s time for a reckoning with the truth.
Michael also has a great new post up at his blog, Bread and Circus, part one and two.
Please hit his tip jar if you can, we need his reporting from Iraq now more than ever.
The Hype Cycle is a great term coined by analyst firm Gartner Group to describe the life cycle of a new technology as it is introduced into the marketplace.
“The Hype Cycle highlights the progression of an emerging technology from market over enthusiasm through a period of disillusionment to an eventual understanding of the technology’s relevance and role in a market or domain.â€
Back in December, I wrote a post about Barack Obama and the Hype Cycle that essentially said that he was at the “over enthusiasm” stage. Today, eight months later, Barack has moved well beyond that, and now he is entering his “period of disillusionment”
DRUDGE is flashing tonight that Hillary Clinton has opened a 22 point lead against Obama. This is not surprising given his string of recent missteps. Here is a partial list,
His desire to leave Iraq yesterday.
And attack Pakistan tomorrow.
Pushing coal-to-liquid energy while campaigning as a certified global warming believer.
His tendency towards banal, empty rhetoric at the expense of substance.
All of this adds up to Barack’s current predicament, his “period of disillusionment”. According to Gartner, the next step in the Hype Cycle is, “an eventual understanding of the technology’s relevance and role in a market or domain.” In this case, remove the word “technology” and replace it with “candidate”.
Barack Obama is someone whose experience has yet to catch up to his ambition. The guy simply isn’t ready for the job and the more he is exposed during the campaign, the more it shows.
10 Questions for all the Pro Abortion Presidential Candidates
GrassTopsUSA Guest Commentary
By Gregg Jackson
08-03-071. To those who want to keep abortion safe, legal, and rare:
How does one “safely” dismember and discard a living human being from the mother’s womb? If you are not actually killing a living human being, then why should abortions be “rare” especially if, as many assert, abortions prevent “unwanted” pregnancies “abuse” and “future crime?”
2. To those who claim that legalized abortion reduces child abuse:
The landmark study on this issue was done by Dr. Edward Lenoski- a Professor of Pediatrics and Emergency Medicine at USC. He found that the majority of abused children were “wanted” ( i.e. planned). Can those who support abortion cite any specific peer reviewed study that empirically concludes that abortion reduces child abuse?
3. To those who say it’s not fair to bring unwanted children into the world:
Do you think that it is fair to stick surgical scissors into the back of a baby’s skull and suck out the baby’s brains with a vacuum, dismember the baby and throw the baby away in a trash receptacle like a piece of garbage?
If you have an hour to watch this video on “man made global warming” I would highly suggest doing so. Man made global warming is a lie-pure and simple. It is not based on sound science but is instead an active and vibrant global political movement that presents itself under the guise of science. As one of the scientists on the video says, “when the Berlin Wall came down, the Communists of the world had to find a new home which they did in the modern day envinronmental movement.” As Chris Horner, author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming” and world renowned atmospheric scientist Dr. Dick Lindzen of MIT (who makes many appearences in the video0 have both said on our show, this political movement is essentially anti-capitalist and anti-human.
This video shows why eco-hysterics and alarmists like Al Gore won’t debate the issue. They know it’s not true.