What exactly are you advocating Mr Rudd?

Kevin Rudd (also known as Kevin Krudd) is about to have an essay released in which he calls for a New World Order. Without a doubt what Krudd is actually advocating is a lot more than socialism – he is advocating Communism. In his essay, Krudd denounces what he terms the “unfettered capitalism of the past three decades” whilst he calls for a new era in which government intervention and regulation feature heavily.

The problem here is that this form of heavy government intervention has failed in the past. The New Deal experiment by Roosevelt is a prime example of how this kind of intervention fails in its task to bring an economy out of the morass of high unemployment, and other ills.

Also, Krudd has a bit of a problem if he describes the way in which the economy has worked for the past 30 years as a “great neo-liberal experiment”, rather, it is what he wants that will be the the “neo-liberal experiment”, and if it is allowed to proceed then we will find ourselves falling further and further into an economic depression.

Krudd has decreed:

“Neo-liberalism and the free-market fundamentalism it has produced has been revealed as little more than personal greed dressed up as an economic philosophy. And, ironically, it now falls to social democracy to prevent liberal capitalism from cannibalising itself.”

Mr Rudd writes in The Monthly that just as Franklin Roosevelt rebuilt US capitalism after the Great Depression, modern-day “social democrats” such as himself and the US President, Barack Obama, must do the same again. But he argues that “minor tweakings of long-established orthodoxies will not do” and advocates a new system that reaches beyond the 70-year-old interventionist principles of John Maynard Keynes.

The problem with the Krudd analysis is that Franklin Roosevelt did not rebuild US capitalism. The reality happens to be that the USA took longer than necessary to come out of the Great Depression because of the failure of the Government intervention. What Krudd fails to appreciate is that unemployment actually got worse during the Great Depression, not better. What saved the USA was not the policies of Rossevelt, but the Second World War.

The neo-liberal socialists like Kevin Rudd seem to think that they understand Keynsian economics. They cling to the fact that Keynes advocated that there should be government intervention during times of high unemployment. What they fail to understand is that J.M. Keynes actually understood that what is also needed is private investment to help keep the economy working or well-oiled.

Like his rather incompetent counter-part in the USA, the new POTUS, Barack Obama (Sotero perhaps is more correct), Kevin Krudd believes that it is necessary to bash the CEOs of businesses and banks and to grandstand about what has gone wrong. The Kevin Krudd “fix” has been a stimulus package that will cost the tax-payer dearly, but it will not help to bring the economy out of the present recession.

When Kevin Krudd blasts CEOs for awarding themselves bonuses, he should think about how this is hypocrisy in its worst form because members of Parliament do not exercise any restraint at all. The essay by Krudd seems to be indicating that he wants to plunge Australia into a government that is based upon communism. He is talking the double talk, attacking the straw-man that he refers to as neo-liberals, when in fact it is his policies that are those of the neo-liberals.

Also, he is attacking the trade and economic policies of the Hawke-Keating years (when Keating was Treasurer) which has led to Keating’s own attack upon Kevin Krudd (and a well deserved attack by Keating). Paul Keating was responsible for most of the changes in the Australian economy that have been very painful. The fall-out from those changes has seen an end to Australian manufacturing industry. At this moment we are seeing that one of the few remaining companies has made a decision to lay off employees and head to China – the company owns the brands of Bonds and Dunlop. In some ways it is inevitatble because these brands simply cannot compete against the Chinese imports. The costs of manufacturing are just too high, and with all of the Green nonsense that we suffer these costs will continue to rise in the future.

I happen to agree that we need to have some kind of justification for some of the CEO bonuses that are handed out, especially when they are given at the expense of employee jobs (QANTAS) but it is not right for the Prime Minister to bash these compnanies by implying things that are not necessarily true.

There is little chance that the Krudd stimulus package will work. The reason? There is too much pork in the package, and that pork is not going to help job creation. If Krudd had been following true Keynesian economics, then the solution would have been to lower taxes first. Those companies that are struggling need to start looking at ways of reducing their waste and bloat. They should not be relying upon a government handout. The government handouts to companies such as General Motors Holden are in reality quite wasteful. That money is not going to fix the underlying problems within the motor industry. We are a small nation, and if we were to continue to have a viable motor industry then we need to be able to sell the cars in the overseas markets. Is this happening? In other words why is the product not being sold on the world market? Why is the product so uncompetitive? Throwing money at these car manufacturers is jut not the way to resolve these questions.

I do not believe in the level of government intervention advocated by Kevin Krudd. Perhaps it could be said that I am a libertarian because I believe in less intervention, not more, but I do not see myself in that light because I have certain differences of opinion with the Libertarians. There are many areas where Government intervention is somewhat necessary, but I think that the intervention should be short-term and not long-term as Krudd seems to be advocating.

I suspect that few Australians have any knowledge of the real Kevin Krudd agenda. I just hope that more Australian voters will become aware of his very dangerous policies, especially when they begin to realise that he wants to drive us towards communism, which is the real name for what he is advocating.

Geitner gets a C- from the financial markets

I am a graduate of Economics and Commerce at Melbourne University, which includes a major in economics. I have a very modest qualification and have not been following economics all that much since graduation – it really is quite a boring subject. However, since the middle of last year I suddenly find that I have to sit up and pay attention, because of the collapse of the financial markets all around the world.

It is outside of my almost non-existent expertise to give any form of in-depth analysis of the present crisis. I can barely understand all of the critical factors that has led to the crisis that occurred first in the USA and then sent shock waves around the world. A new word has been created – “toxic debt”. Getting around what this means is quite difficult. It is not as claimed by Barak Obama and his sleazy bunch of cohorts something that resulted from Bush policies. The fact is, the “toxic debt” has its roots in legislation created by the Carter Administration that led to the creation of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac. As an outsider these are concepts that are not easy to grasp. I do not pretend at this stage to have been able to grasp all of the realities of the situation.

What I do know, however, is that as a result of policies that began with the Carter Administration, my superannuation fund has dropped by a whopping $40,000 and my husband suffered a greater wipeout from his funds because of the crash of the stock market. The nervousness within the stock-market which generated the largest crashes since the Great Depression is due to the collapse of several banking institutions because of bad debt practices and the creation of what is now called “toxic debt”. This situation could have been avoided if the Carter Administration as well as administrations that followed had behaved in a fiscally responsible manner.

Whilst it is true that the Bush Administration made mistakes, that it got tax policies wrong, that it sent out the wrong signals, it is wrong to blame everything that has happened solely on G.W. Bush. I certainly think that the Carter and Clinton Administrations must share responsibility for very poor policies. Over time, as I learn more, or at least refresh my own understanding of the subject I will try to explore some of the things that are now coming to light. In the mean time the world financial markets have not responded well to the latest from the Obama Administration in the form of the Geitner package that is supposed to help with what is called “toxic debt”.

In what is rapidly becoming known as Obama double speak, Geithner staed that the new bank bail-out package was vital as “critical parts of our financial system are damaged. Instead of catalyzing recovery the financial system is working against recovery, and thats the dangerous dynamic we need to change”

The new plan is allegedly aimed at restoring confidence in the damaged financial system and restarting bank lending. Despite the aims of this plan the financial market analysts are not convinced and they are in fact disappointed. As James Ellman of Seacliff Capital stated: investors wanted clarity, simplicity and resolution and what they got instead is convoluted, obsfucating and clouded. It is yet another poor start for the Obama Administration, which is struggling to get above and F for the first month in office report card.

The Williamson affair – why ex-communication does not apply

The SSPX bishop Richard Williamson was recently reinstated to the Catholic Church after an ex-communication applied by Pope John Paul II over disciplinary matters concerning the SSPX. This ex-communication was lifted by Pope Benedict in an effort to reconcile the SSPX to the main body of the Catholic Church. If Catholics do not totally understand what took place then how on earth are Protestants, Jews or other interested parties to understand what has taken place.

The issue that has arisen is related to personal remarks made by Williamson. The man is not infallible and what he has stated – I disagree with him totally – is a private opinion that is not related in any way to his role within the Church.

The Catholic Church does not ex-communicate people because of their stated political views, unless those views are diametrically opposed to the moral teachings of the Church. In this case the views expressed, of holocaust denial, even though very repugnant has nothing to do with the moral teachings of the Catholic Church. We need to see the issue of his reinstatement from that point of view.

However, the political views expressed by Richard Williamson about the 6 million Jews and the 2-3 million Catholics who also perished in the Hitler death chambers are very repugnant to the majority of Catholics, including Pope Benedict XVI, a German who was himself opposed to Hitler.

Richard Williamson, in an interview on Swedish TV denied the possibility that so many perished, despite the evidence to the contrary that exists at the concentration camps. It seems that he also denies the fact that so many Catholics and other Christians also died in these same camps. Since we are supposed to have free speech, he is entitled to express:

“I believe that the historical evidence is strongly against — is
hugely against — 6 million Jews having been deliberately gassed in gas
chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler,” Williamson said
recently in an interview with a Swedish television station, which also
appeared on various Web sites after its broadcast. “I believe there
were no gas chambers.”

but Williamson is not an historian, so what evidence has he seen to in fact deny what took place? His claim that there were no gas chambers shows that he has not read the records relating to the existence of the gas chambers, neither has he given any indication that he acknowledges the death of the disabled and weak in German society by gassing at hospitals prior to the outbreak of the second world war, and the travesty against the Jews that took place during that time. It would seem that he did not read the diary of Anne Frank and he dismissed other evidence provided by eyewitnesses to the experiments that took place.

However, the Vatican is taking steps against Williamson over his holocaust denial, and I do believe that these are the correct steps to take:

The Vatican’s secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, has said
Williamson will not be allowed to perform priestly functions if he does
not recant. He said the pope was unaware of the comments when he
rehabilitated Williamson and three other members of the Society of
Saint Pius X.

Pope Benedict himself has distanced himself from the views of Williamson. The young Josef Ratzinger was forced to join Hitler Youth, but he did not attend the sessions – he got away with the non-attendance. He displayed extraordinary courage through his own defiance. For Pope Benedict the comments are a searing reminder of the past travesty against Jews from Germany, Poland, Holland, and other European nations.

Do I believe that Williamson should be disciplined? Yes, I believe that the disciplinary measures that are being taken are appropriate. If he is to be ex-communicated again then it needs to be for church disciplinary reasons and not the political reasons behind the present uproar.

I have no doubt that Angela Merkel is a good woman. I have no doubt that she has a Christian background, but she has no understanding of the Catholic Church and her comments and demands are unhelpful. I fully support those who are upset about Williamson’s remarks.

Obama tries coercion to get his pork barrel through Congress

It is called an economic stimulus passage but from what I have been reading about what it contains it is nothing more than a payoff to those groups that supported the Obama campaign with a lot of nasty things thrown in for good measure. Since the Teflon President does not have economic credentials his package really needs to be given a good once over. It is nothing like the packages that were introduced during the Great Depression – when projects such as building the Hoover Dam were introduced. The package itself in the long term could be extremely harmful to the economy of the USA, as well as to the world economy.

Amongst the nasty proposals in the package is the unconstitutional conditions being applied to schools (including universities) that would make it impossible for any group of students to gather together for prayer and Bible study. This kind of condition has nothing to do with the separation of religion and the State – a concept that I agree with, but I disagree with the modern interpretation of that concept.

Another nasty was the signing of yet another executive order that will have dire consequences usually for white males in the construction industry. The executive order means that only contractors with unionized labour will be allowed to compete for the pork barrel projects. This is discrimination against those who do not want to join a union that uses coercive tactics in the first place. It will also have the effect of driving up costs associated with these projects. There is nothing wrong with belonging to a union but construction unions do have a certain unsavoury reputation. This new Teflon President is going at fast speed in doing everything that is bad for the USA.

Obama is now trying to use what I consider to be coercion tactics to get his pork-barrel through the Congress. If he succeeds with these tactics then things will be very grim in the USA. Obama warns that there could be a “catastrophe” if the package is not passed, but many think that if it is passed, without a lot of trimming then there will be something larger than a catastrophe, because this package is not going to stimulate the economy of the USA.

Splish Splash I’m taking a bath

You have to admit this is a very cute picture of a baby koala. The poor thing had been suffering from the heat. His mother had become disoriented and the baby was “abandoned”. The owner of the property gave him some water, and once he realized the source of the water he decided to hop into the tub.

Here are some other pictures of the same koala:

kill the unborn – hand out contraceptives that can kill to boost the economyKi

Gateway Pundit: Pelosi Tells ABC Birth Control Will Help Boost Economy

The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi believes that funding birth control – aka abortion funds being given to Planned Parenthood and other abortion mills will boost the economy.

I guess, Nancy is an admirer of Malthus and Mills.

Animal rights activists in GB branded as urban terrorist – jailed.

The judge hearing the case against the animal rights activists known as “Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty” has branded the activists as urban terrorists. They have been jailed for a total of 50 years for their ruthless campaign of intimidation.

The group intimidated firms that had dealings with Huntingdon Life Science with the purpose of ending those relationships. The following is a list of their activities during their campaign of intimidation and blackmail:

• sent letters to the neighbours of workers at the facility claiming that they were living next door to paedophiles;
• sent hoax boms and items claimed to be contaminated with AIDS to homes;
• at night they poured paint stripper on cars and daubed walls with words such as murderer and puppy killer

Vandalism: The extremists caused thousands of pounds worth of damage to property including the above car.

The court had heard how Shac had cost the companies they targeted $12.6 million in criminal damage and extra security. These people should not been seen as martyrs for the cause. They are criminal vandals and blackmailers.

The ringleader of this gang of vandals has even boasted about his effectiveness:

The 41-year-old told an interviewer: ‘Whatever you think of us, you
have to admit one thing – what we do works. We have a 100 per cent
success rate. Whoever we choose to target is finished.’

Avery had launched a vicious campaign against Consort Bio services which included intimidating protests outside the homes of workers until the business was forced to close. This was followed by a campaign against Hillgrove Cat Farm in Wtney near Oxford which closed after the owner’s wife was tied to a tree with a bag over her head.

Avery’s initial campaign against Huntingdon was not successful so he decided to target shareholders and the “supply lines” by intimidating the staff of companies that provided them with materials and services.

Avery was also involved with a campaign of intimidation against Darley Oaks guinea pig farm in Staffordshire, which included the theft of the remains of the owner’s mother-in-law.

Cat and mouse

 

I have to blog this story because I have seen how a dog and cat can also love each other and be together in harmony.

The cat’s name is Ranj and he is a lovely ginger tom. Can you tell I am partial to ginger cats?

Apparently it is nothing new for two cross breeds to bond like the cat and rat or like Skittles and Ruby. Below is an example of an orphan elephant bonding with a sheep.

Themba the elephant, pictured above, became attached to Albert the sheep after he became orphaned at just six months of age.

In other cases, different species connect after the loss of a mate.

‘It’s amazing what animals do when they want to bond and be close to each other,’ Mark Bekoff, a professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado, told Animal Welfare Institute Quarterly.

Black Box confirms bird strike

The flight data recorder has been examined and has confirmed the story of the pilots that a bird-strike caused the double engine failure which led to the crash landing on the Hudson River.

You can read the story here.

New York hails pilot who landed jetliner in Hudson River

The Hudson River New York has been the scene of a dramatic landing for a stricken aircraft. The pilot, Chesley B. Sullenberg III, an ex-USAF fighter pilot and a professional pilot for 40 years, made what has been described as a text-book landing, thus saving the life of all 155 on board the A320 Airbus.

The plane had just taken off from La Guardia airport, when it crossed the path of a flock of geese. There was a thud and both engines lost power. The geese also hit the windshield of the aircraft. The captain of the plane took the controls from the co-pilot so that the co-pilot could concentrate on trying to restart the engines. Sullenberger notified the control tower that there had been an incident and that both engines had lost power. They briefly discussed action to be taken for a landing. Sullenberger ruled out returning to La Guardia and then ruled out Teterborough airfield in New Jersey. There was a high risk of a greater tragedy by attempting either landing. The only avenue left was to attempt the landing on the water.

Sullenberger knew that he had to get this landing right, and he narrowly missed a bridge as he approached a point an area of the river that would mean the best chance of a rescue. He managed to do everything necessary to execute the perfect landing on water such that the airplane did not break up on landing. The passengers were ordered to brace for a hard landing, and they did. The cabin-crew gave quick instructions before sitting and bracing for the landing on the water. Unfortunately one member of the crew has been injured. As soon as the plane landed the cabin crew and passengers went into action. Women and children were the first to exit, followed by the other passengers, and finally the captain of the aircraft. He paced the length of the aircraft twice before leaving, making sure that no one was left on board the sinking plane.

The crash is now the subject of an investigation. The investigation will include what went wrong – why did the engines lose power? In other words verifying that there was a double bird-strike. It will also investigate what went right during the flight and subsequent landing and rescue of the passengers.

There are lessons to be learned from every aircraft accident. This one is different because a tragedy was prevented. No doubt pilots will now practise in their flight simulators the steps taken by Sullenberg to safely land his bird on the water. In the past few days comparisons have been made between this landing and that of the plane that crashed off Ethiopia. The footage of the Ethiopian crash shows that the plane had banked before it hit the water – in other words it was not absolutely straight. However, in that incident the cabin crew were most likely fighting with the hijackers who were on board, and therefore the pilot did not have the ability to be able to straighten the plane prior to the crash into the sea. It is in fact not a very good comparison because of the extraordinary circumstances.

It is a miracle that no one died as a result of this incident and calling it a miracle does not in any way discount the actions of the aircrew as well as that of the passengers, and the rescue workers. What we saw was a well coordinated effort that saved 155 lives. The man who made that happen is Chesley B. Sullenberger.