Christie’s Private Beach

ChristiesPrivateBeach  <– PDF

The arrogance of power descended on a beach in New Jersey today as His Most High Graciousness Governor Chris Christie and his family enjoyed the sunny weather on Island Beach State Park.  It turns out that His Majestic Highness, owing to a budgetary dispute with the legislature, had ordered all state beaches closed as of Friday night.  Under New Jersey state law, His Graciousness has two official residences: one in Princeton, and one at Island Beach State Park.  The royal festivities were captured by a helicopter flying overhead.  His Majesty’s Lord High Spokesman at first denied that he was there, but when confronted with photographic proof, said:

“He didn’t get much sun because he had a baseball cap on.”

The Lord High Spokesman failed to mention if there is any exception granted to the His Graciousness under the law if the state beaches are closed to the public. His High Graciousness Christie took the time to look down his nose and issued a clarifying official statement on the matter:

“The governor is allowed to go to his residences, and I’m at my residences. I’ll tell you this, I said last Monday – a week ago today – that no matter what happens, we were coming here as a family this weekend.”

Apparently there is a new budget deal in the works that will open the beaches to the general public (you know, those slime-slurping bottom dwelling taxpaying lowlifes) in time for the Fourth of July.

The sad part is not that a governor thinks he’s royalty – that is as old as human nature. What is truly sad is that the people of New Jersey have been so brainwashed by serfdom that they are no longer offended by the open demonstration of official contempt.  There are a few applications that could have been made by the people, if they had the backbone for it.

First, the people could simply have declared that the beaches are open to everyone, since the Governor and his family are enjoying it. They should have proceeded to the beaches en masse, and dared anyone to arrest them.  Second, they could announce that government regulation of beaches is hereby abolished on the grounds that any government that regards itself above the law ipso facto cannot be trusted.  At minimum, an investigation should ensue as to whether any exception is allowed for the Governor in these instances, and if so, the exception should be immediately repealed.

In any case, the people of New Jersey should henceforth always refer to Christie as His Majesty, and other titles befitting such a royal personage, having demonstrated he is above the law, and (probably in his own mind) above the Constitution as well.

His High Graciousness had one final word to the lowlife peasantry:

“What a great bit of journalism by The Star-Ledger. They actually caught a politician being where he said he was going to be with the people he said he was going to be with, his wife and children and their friends.  I am sure they will get a Pulitzer for this one.”

His Majesty forgot to mention that he initially denied he was on the beach, and admitted it only after the picture became public. His statement also implies that friends of the royal family are also above the law.  Yet the people of New Jersey tolerate this level of arrogance.

Tags:
Posted in Famous people, government powers | No Comments »

Barack H. Obama’s Legacy, Part 7

ObamaLegacyPart7 <– PDF

President Donald Trump recently withdrew the U. S. from the Paris Climate Accord, signed by President Obama. It was one of Mr. Obama’s foreign policies based on fundamental lies about the earth’s climate, one designed to ultimately transfer total governance of your life to government bureaucrats. The Paris Climate Accord was intended to reduce total carbon emissions by 2030, although Communist China and India, the two greatest polluters, were exempt. It is worse than that: the entire agreement is voluntary on the part of all the signatories. Now, if the various national signatories believed that climate change is man-made, and that we are all at risk of extinction if something isn’t done, why aren’t the emission reduction targets mandatory? Because the wealthy and powerful know that man-made climate change is a hoax. Even if the provisions were mandatory, and even if they are met, the net impact for the next 100 years was estimated to be about 0.2 degrees K, hardly worth the trouble. But, if the signatories are dumb enough to follow through on the reductions, there may be a significant impact to many peoples’ standard of living: at minimum, an increase in energy costs that would otherwise have been devoted to other needs and desires.

The activists clamoring for emission controls want you to believe that the recent warming of the earth’s temperatures has never occurred before. They are in effect demanding that you ignore all the history of the “little ice age” that occurred in the Northern Hemisphere from about 1350 to 1750 AD. During that time the earth was somewhat colder than it is now; in fact the earth was warmer than it is now during the period from about 750 to 1350 AD. Consider for example the history of Greenland. It was discovered by the Norwegian explorer Eirik the Red in 981. He stayed there, in a place called Snaefell (location unknown), then returned to Iceland, where he convinced a group of people to emigrate to Greenland. He called it Greenland, so the story goes, to give the illusion of a warm place where agriculture would pros-per. It was in fact, warmer than it is now. They eventually created two settlements, one in a place called Brattahlid (near present-day Qassiarsuk) and one called Godthaab (near present-day Nuuk). The historian Knut Gjerset [1] explains the early history as follows:

In spite of the cold climate and the dangers connected with navigation in these northern seas the colonies continued to grow until the Eastern Settlement [Brattahlid] had 190 farmsteads, twelve churches and two monasteries. The Western Settlement [Godthaab] had ninety dwellings and four churches. Together the two settlements probably had at the time of their greatest prosperity about 2000 people. The settlers found no native inhabitants in Greenland, though numerous traces of human habitation convinced them that the country was inhabited. The old Icelandic historian Ari Frodi says: “They found remnants of human dwellings both eastward and westward in the land, stone weapons and fragments of boats, from which it was evident that the same people who inhabit Vinland, and whom the people of Greenland call Skraelings, had also sojourned there”. But the Skraelings, or Eskimos, who inhabited this region must have moved to other hunting grounds, as they did not return until a later period. The climate and general conditions in Greenland were found to be much the same as in Iceland. The winters are long and cold, and the sea is usually strewed with icebergs even late in spring, but in the summer a green belt of vegetation stretches along the western coast. During this season of the year the weather is agreeable and the scenery is beautiful. No woods exist, but there is an abundance of grass, flowers, berries, and brush of dwarfed birch trees. The clear air and blue fjords, the glaciers and snow-covered mountains give the region in summer time a serene and tranquil beauty equal to that of any region in the far North. Fish are found in great abundance in the streams as well as in the sea; and seals, walrus, polar bears and furbearing animals are plentiful. Cattle, sheep, goats and horses thrived well and were kept in goodly numbers by the settlers. For want of other building material the houses were erected of stone, and as the dwellings were usually structures of considerable size, with separate stables for sheep, horses and cattle, many remnants are still to be seen in Greenland of the buildings erected by the early settlers. In the Eastern Settlement the ruins of several churches and of about one hundred dwellings have been found.

So, prior to year 981 AD, Greenland had become too warm for the Eskimos, who moved north. Greenland was warm enough to support grazing by cattle, horses, and sheep. The colonists disappeared by about 1450; the most common explanation is the reduction of trade with Norway, the Black Death of 1349, and the return of the Eskimos when the little ice age set in, who absorbed the few remaining colonists. Thus we learn that the global temperature changes occur in long protracted cycles spanning several centuries, and man has little, if anything to do with it. The warming from 750 to 1350 was certainly not caused by man’s industrial pollutants, as those did not begin to appear until about 1700.

The Paris Climate Accord is typical of Mr. Obama’s foreign policies: anything to appease the screeching activists, even if the entire theory is false, and anything to create an excuse to reduce America’s position in the global economy.

[1] Knut Gjerset, History of Iceland, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1925, pp. 95, 96

Tags: , ,
Posted in Economics, progressive | No Comments »

The Peace of Islam Visits the UK

PeaceOfIslamVisitsUK   <– PDF

Mohammed’s Maggots continue their actions in Great Britain to promote peace and understanding according to the Islamic tradition.  On 22 March 2017, five people were killed in Westminster by a member of the Smiling Jihad who ran people over with a vehicle and then stabbed several others, causing six fatalities and 40 injuries.  On 22 May 2017, another loving Moslem set off a bomb at a concert venue in Manchester, killing 22 and injuring 120 or so.  On 3 Jun 2017 it was three of Allah’s loyal servants running people over on London Bridge and then stabbing whoever they could.  There were seven fatalities and 48 injured.  In response to this last attack, British Prime Minister Theresa May issued a statement (1.5 official harrumphs – serious indeed):

“Since the emergence of the threat from Islamist-inspired terrorism our country has made significant progress in disrupting plots and protecting the public. But it is time to say enough is enough.  We cannot and must not pretend that things can continue as they are.”

I am not a subject of the Queen, so it is not my place to criticize the U.K.’s policies.  But I can put this into an American perspective.  We have a certain number of Mohammed’s Maggots in the U.S., just as in the U. K., allowed here because our bureaucrats and politicians, like in the U. K., believe that all cultures and all religions are equal.  They have failed to realize that Islam was founded as a political religion, designed by Mohammed to get the Arab tribes to cast off their petty gods and idols, and give allegiance to one big idol (Allah), thus uniting the squabbling Arab tribes into a potent military and political force.  In the first century of its existence, the Arab tribes under the spell of Islam successfully conquered the entire Middle East except Persia, all of northern Africa, and what is now Spain (it was then called the Kingdom of the Visigoths).  Because our politicians regard all cultures and religions as equal, they are not willing to recognize that Islam is at war with both Western culture and any religion that is not Islamic.

Now that a certain number of them are in the U. S., our ever-spineless government officials treat the Islamic threat as just another series of crimes.  They are afraid to offend the Moslems; instead attempt to rationalize their actions.  Our former federal administration would not even admit the existence of Islamic “peace” until a month before it left office.  It is a true lesson of history: if you treat acts of war like crimes, you will lose the war.  The people of the U. K. have been victimized many times in recent years, and it is likely that we in the U. S. will eventually experience the same thing, given the pansy-style approach adopted by our leaders.  Sooner or later we Americans will corral our politicians and bureaucrats and demand of them, “When are you clowns going to get off your fat lazy lard-asses, and do your damn job to get Mohammed’s Maggots out of our country?”

When that day comes, the political and bureaucratic wimpy-boys will laugh in our faces, and tell us: a) there’s nothing to worry about; b) it is only a minor crime wave; c) Islamophobia is not a viable policy, and d) we can’t kill our way out of this problem. Their rationale is obvious: none of the attacks by Mohammed’s Maggots affect them personally.  Neither Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Paul Ryan or any of their family members will ever be affected by anything the enemy does, being protected at all times by a dozen guards with machine guns.  It is only the slime-slurping bottom-dwelling taxpayer lowlifes like us that get blown up, shot, stabbed, and run over by the true Islamic faithful.  Therefore, there is no cause for alarm.

I am pretty certain of how things will go up to that point. What happens when they laugh in our faces is too hard to predict.

Tags: ,
Posted in terrorism | No Comments »

Barack H. Obama’s Legacy, Part 6

ObamaLegacyPart6  <– PDF

Returning to Mr. Obama’s governing principle, as noted in the first edition, it is evident that his domestic policy was founded on economic and political socialism. It was seen early on in his confrontation during the 2008 campaign with Samuel J. Wurzelbacher, a.k.a. “Joe the Plumber”.  On 16 Oct 2008, Mr. Wurzelbacher asked Mr. Obama about tax policy regarding small businesses, and Mr. Obama responded a long roundabout answer in which he concluded that “when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody”.

Pretty weak response for a Messiah, I might add. In any case, Mr. Obama’s remark was often cited as symptomatic of the kind of “politics of envy” practiced so well by socialists.  Under the notion of envy, Joe is regarded as evil because Joe enjoys a higher economic status than other people.  But it is worse than that — this remark was evidence that Mr. Obama has bought into the false notion that if one person gains, it is only because another person (or group) has lost.  He fails to see, as do all socialists, that every exchange is made because everyone benefits at least indirectly. If we apply that correct principle to Joe the Plumber it works out like this.

When Mr. Obama goes into his kitchen and turn on his tap water, he enjoys fresh water because of the efforts of Joe and all the other plumbers for the last several centuries who have figured out how to provide fresh water, collect the dirty water, transport it to a purification station, clean it up and recycle it, and pump it back to Mr. Obama’s kitchen tap. All the efforts of all those people over that time has led to fresh water for nearly all Americans (unless you live in Flint MI, where the illustrious local government poisoned it).  Joe did not invent the science of plumbing; he is a focused, specialized practitioner of the accumulated science.  His benefit to society manifests itself such that that if someone in the community has a plumbing problem, it is much cheaper, more convenient, and faster for him to call a professional plumber than it is to fix it himself (at least for most people).  That is because most people live by specialization themselves — whether they are doctors, electricians, mechanics, or social workers.  Everyone benefits from specialization because those services are, in the long run, cheaper than doing those things oneself.  In other words, if one earns a profit from some activity or profession, someone else gains.  The person who needs plumbing work generally gains because Joe is available to do it cheaper than he could do it himself.

This whole notion that the profit of one is also a profit to another is counter to the socialist maxim that one who profits does so only at the expense, or loss of another. The fact that Joe the Plumber worked hard and has a successful business is evidence to the socialist that he is an exploiter of his customers; failing to realize that if Joe really were exploiting his customers, he would soon not have any left due to competition in a free society.  This blind spot on socialist theory has led them, including Mr. Obama, to conclude that it is the government’s duty to prevent “exploitation” by private enterprise  in order to ensure equality for all.  A socialist never reveals how he will achieve equality, or in what manner equality is measured and verified.  Government can only do things by force: it has no moral compass.  “Equality” is reached in a socialist society when the ruling elite continuously takes as much as it can without provoking a revolution.

Mr. Obama had made an earlier speech (13 Jul 2008) about small business, in which he pointed out that although businessmen work hard, they also benefit from roads and bridges and other infrastructure, concluding “you didn’t build that”. It is true that everyone benefits from those latter categories, not just Joe: did not Mr. Obama also benefit?  Of course: but Mr. Obama accuses Joe and other successful people of ignoring those common benefits (i.e., what was called “the common good” in the U. S. Constitution, if he had read it), and uses them in his exploitation, conveniently forgetting that while the government may have managed the building of that infrastructure, it was the working people like Joe that paid for it.  They continue to pay for it; but Mr. Obama apparently wants us to believe that thinks that the governmental ruling class provides these for free out of their own pockets.

Socialists believe that someone must lose when someone else profits. But he himself has made a great deal of money by publishing several books, although he did not invent papermaking, or typesetting, or binding or editing, or all the other efforts that go into publishing a book.  He didn’t build publishing any more than Joe built plumbing, yet he claims Joe is the exploiter.  Mr. Obama took advantage of the copyright laws (established for the common good) just as Joe took advantage of the public utilities.  Now, if Joe is an exploiter who caused people to lose when he gained from his plumbing business, maybe Barack the Messiah can give us a list of names of those who lost because he gained on the publication of his books.

Tags:
Posted in Economics, progressive | No Comments »