CAIR: Supporting America...

In Defense Of The Constitution

News & Analysis
March 23, 2012
http://www.anti-cair-net.org/CAIRSupportingAmerica....html


     CAIR:  Supporting America...

     Since the founding of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the majority of non-Muslim citizens of the United States have been constantly accused of "Islamophobia" (a word created as a propaganda tool used by CAIR), "racism" (even though there is no such race as "Muslim"), and "intolerance" (a word used by many groups to describe those who disagree with them without using words of substance or evidence to back up their accusations).

     Our country cowers in submission, much like England, France, The Netherlands, and Germany, in that we cannot even have a rational discussion on political/radical Islam in the United States without having to gain "permission" from CAIR and other alphabet-soup so-called "Muslim Civil Rights Groups".  Even our military services are forced to accept questionable Muslim chaplains vetted by the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), yet another front group for radical Islam.

     The current state of the "Mainstream Media" in the United States is partly to blame.  Consider that the New York Times (NYT) is still believed by many Americans (and other newspapers) as the "paper of record".  NYT articles and columnists are followed throughout the United States.  While the NYT may get it right on occasion, the simple fact is that it appears willfully wrong on the Islamist threat to our country.

     This ability to overlook the obvious is not limited to the NYT. It infects any number of American papers whose reporters and editorial staff simply aren't up to the challenge of honest reporting regarding the fascist ideology of CAIR members and their ilk.  And really, who can blame them?  Events all over the world have demonstrated that murder and mayhem may await any paper, reporter, or social commentator who dare to take an objective look at the threat of radical Islamic ideology. (It's much "safer" to pick on Christians and Jews who are known for actually praying for those who insult their faith, not terror murdering them or their children.)

     So where should we turn if the mainstream press won't report the truth?  Due to a poor educational system and a deliberate policy of "speak no evil" when it comes to the darker side of Islamic beliefs by our local, state, and national governments, it seems that we the people are over a barrel when it comes to seeking answers from those whose responsibility it is to provide them.  If the government won't speak the truth regarding radical Islam, how can we count on it to protect us from the terror of radical Islam?

     Even more disturbing forces are at play.  For example; Congressman Peter King recently attended a rally in support of the New York City Police Department (NYPD).  The rally came about in response to a NYT article outing on-going investigations of various Islamic groups in the New York - New Jersey area.  Apparently, Governor Christie of New Jersey was upset that the NYPD hadn't kissed the ring of the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) unit in Newark, New Jersey before pursuing its investigation. While Governor Christie can complain over what is, essentially, hurt feelings, the underlying question that should be asked is: "Why didn't the NYPD approach the JTTF?"  Could it be that the NYPD knows something about the JTTF that made the JTTF an unreliable partner?  Perhaps the JTTF administrators would have refused to back the investigation and label it as being "un-American"?  Was there a security issue? We'll never know because the mainstream media won't investigate.

     CAIR and CAIR's fellow travelers are constantly brow beating us on how oppressed "Muslims" are in the United States.  We can take CAIR at their word. The highly esteemed (and deported) CAIR Community Relations Director Bassem Khafagi (currently running for president of Egypt), said of the United States: "I loved the place I lived in, but I never loved the US, the infidel country".  We can suppose he didn't love the USA because he was deported following his conviction on two charges of bank fraud and one count of visa fraud.  In his running for president of Egypt, he has promised to "complete the implementation of Islamic law in Egypt. I do not hide this truth in any way, because it is in keeping with the inclination of the Egyptian people."  One has to wonder, did Khafagi bother to ask the Copts or Jews (are there any Jews left in Egypt?) how they feel about living under Sharia Law with it's well-known respect for human rights and religious liberty?  Will Friday services at the Mosque be followed by amputation of various body parts at the local mall parking lot for Sharia Law-breakers, as is very common in that paragon of Islamic jurisprudence, Saudi Arabia?  So much for CAIR's stated position of respect for all religions.

     Our forefathers bequeathed us a country founded in respect for the law and tolerance of religious beliefs.  Our enemies should not interpret our tolerance as weakness.  Our governing bodies and press should discontinue their policies of appeasement of political/radical Islam that serves no practical purpose beyond conditioning our people to accept the unacceptable.  Now is the time to take a stand and say "no more".

     There is no law that demands the mainstream media quote CAIR and no government policy that requires CAIR be consulted on anything Islamic.

     CAIR, founded by terrorists, is a media parasite.

     Starve CAIR of exposure and it will dry up and blow away like dog dung on a hot sidewalk. 

     This is as it should be.



Andrew Whitehead
Director
Anti-CAIR
ajwhitehead@anti-cair-net.org
www.anti-cair-net.org


Story Links:
http://frontpagemag.com/2011/11/11/islamophobia-a-license-to-kill/print/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/01/exclusive-concerns-military-chaplain-vetting-policy/
http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2011/11/02/firebombed-french-paper-a-victim-of-islamistsor-its-own-obnoxious-islamophobia/
http://www.investigativeproject.org/3478/american-islamist-groups-mum-on-iranian-repression
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/charlesmoore/9152440/Home-grown-freedoms-are-the-strongest.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/8864063/French-satirical-newspaper-Charlie-Hebdo-firebombed-after-prophet-Mohammed-announcement.html
http://www.aolnews.com/2010/05/11/muhammad-cartoonist-attacked-during-college-lecture/
http://www.politicker.com/2012/03/05/peter-king-slams-left-wing-rumormongers-in-the-press-for-criticizing-nypds-treatment-of-muslims/
http://www.investigativeproject.org/3460/why-muslim-student-group-concerned-the-nypd
http://www.investigativeproject.org/3477/nypd-criticism-draws-new-scrutiny-to-chris
http://www.njsp.org/divorg/invest/counter-terrorism-bureau.html
http://www.investigativeproject.org/3486/under-oath-alamoudi-ties-mas-to-brotherhood
http://www.investigativeproject.org/3489/cair-official-sees-nypd-cia-israeli-conspiracy
http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/6201.htm
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/05/why-nypd-monitoring-should-be-welcome-news-to-us-muslims.html
http://www.danielpipes.org/3511/cair-backs-down-from-anti-cair


Follow Anti-CAIR on twitter
Get private updates on your cell phone by texting
follow AntiCAIR to 40404 in the United States
http://twitter.com/AntiCAIR



ADVISORY:
Please use a non-corporate/non-work e-mail address if you contact CAIR or Anti-CAIR or receive our material.  CAIR may attempt to shame your employer into terminating you if they believe you are receiving "objectionable" material. We make every reasonable effort to protect our mailing list, but we cannot guarantee confidentiality. Anti-CAIR does not share, loan, sell, rent or otherwise publicize our mailing list.  We respect your privacy!

TIPS:
All persons are invited to submit tips and leads.  Anti-CAIR will acknowledge receipt of all tips/leads, but we will NOT acknowledge the source of ANY tip or lead in our Press Releases or on our web site. Exceptions are made for leading media personalities at the discretion of Anti-CAIR and only on request of the person(s) submitting the tip or lead.

---

Powered by YMLP

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Marriage Equality Effort Attracts a Unique Group of Donors

From Coleman

Gay Marriage Effort Attracts a Unique Group of Donors
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and BROOKS BARNES

NYTimes Published: March 23, 2012
LOS ANGELES — On a warm Friday afternoon three years ago, Rob Reiner,
the director, arrived for lunch at the Beverly Hills estate of David
Geffen, the entertainment mogul. Mr. Reiner and his political adviser,
Chad H. Griffin, had spent six months drafting an ambitious legal
campaign aimed at persuading the United States Supreme Court to
establish a constitutional right of same-sex marriage.

Chad Batka for The New York Times
David Geffen, at his induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. He
gave $1.5 million to back same-sex marriage efforts.

Mr. Reiner, joined by Mr. Griffin and Mr. Reiner's wife, Michele, told
Mr. Geffen they would need $3 million to challenge Proposition 8, a
California voter initiative approved the previous November banning
same-sex marriage. He informed Mr. Geffen that they had recruited two
renowned lawyers, David Boies, a Democrat, and Theodore B. Olson, a
Republican, to argue the case.
"Our feeling is not to go state by state," Mr. Reiner said. "Our
strategy is to make this wind up in the United States Supreme Court
and have this a settled issue for all time."

Mr. Geffen asked few questions as they sat in the dining room off his
screening room, with a sweeping view down his sculptured estate. He
agreed before the dessert arrived to raise the money. "I said I'd give
them half the money and raise the other half," Mr. Geffen recalled.
Mr. Geffen wrote a check for $1.5 million and asked Steve Bing, a
friend and producer, to make up the rest.

That lunch was a milestone in the dramatic evolution of a
behind-the-scenes fund-raising network whose goal is to legalize
same-sex marriage from coast to coast. This emerging group of donors
is not quite like any other fund-raising network that has supported
gay-related issues over the past 40 years. They come from Hollywood,
yes, but also from Wall Street and Washington and the corporate world;
there are Republicans as well as Democrats; and perhaps most
strikingly, longtime gay organizers said, there has been an influx of
contributions from straight donors unlike anything they have seen
before.

Mr. Griffin, who this month was named president of the Human Rights
Campaign, a national gay advocacy group, recalled being at a September
2010 fund-raiser for the Proposition 8 legal fund at the Mandarin
Oriental Hotel in New York, organized by, among others, Wall Street
financiers and the former chairman of the Republican National
Committee.

"I knew literally no one in the room," said Mr. Griffin, whose
fund-raising activities on behalf of the Obama campaign helped earn
him a seat at President Obama's table at the state dinner at the White
House last week. "It was a very bizarre moment for me. It was really a
turning point."

Money does not always translate into political success, of course.
While the network has bankrolled the legal case that led two courts to
throw out Proposition 8 and also helped power a same-sex marriage bill
to law in New York State, tough battles may lie ahead with marriage
initiatives on five state ballots this year: Maine, Maryland,
Minnesota, North Carolina and Washington.

And opponents say that while they might be outmatched financially —
the National Organization for Marriage said it had an annual budget of
about $20 million, and estimates that the combined money being spent
in support of same-sex marriage is many times that — they have a more
saleable message. Brian S. Brown, the president of the organization,
said voters had opposed same-sex marriage in the 30 times the question
has been on a ballot since 2000.

"We know what we have to do to win," he said. "We have shown we did
not need to match them dollar for dollar. I would love to. But we've
won without doing that."

The seed money collected at the Geffen home — part of millions of
dollars that have flown into campaigns to finance court battles,
initiative efforts and the campaigns of sympathetic state lawmakers —
was an early indicator of the changing donor network. Mr. Geffen is
gay; Mr. Bing is straight. Mr. Bing is known as a big contributor to
political causes, but associates said this was only the second time he
had ever made a major contribution to a gay-related cause.

The Republican support for the effort largely began after Mr. Olson, a
solicitor general under President George W. Bush, lent it his name. It
accelerated with the fund-raising role of Ken Mehlman, the former
chairman of the Republican National Committee and of Mr. Bush's
re-election campaign, who announced he is gay 18 months ago and has
since helped raise close to $3 million by fishing in waters where gay
organizers had rarely gone before.

As surprising — and encouraging — to organizers of the movement are
the Wall Street names added to their roster. Prominent among them is
Paul Singer, a hedge fund manager who is straight and chairman of the
conservative Manhattan Institute. He has donated more than $8 million
to various same-sex marriage efforts, in states including California,
Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York and Oregon, much of it
since 2007.

"It's become something that gradually people like myself weren't
afraid to fund, weren't afraid to speak out on," Mr. Singer said in an
interview. "I'm somebody who is philosophically very conservative, and
on this issue I thought that this really was important on the basis of
liberty and actual family stability."

The New York fund-raiser was sponsored by Mr. Singer and Mr. Mehlman,
among others, and drew a crowd that included Henry R. Kravis, a
private equity investor; Daniel S. Loeb, a hedge fund manager; Lewis
M. Eisenberg, a former finance chairman for the Republican National
Committee; and Steve Schmidt, who managed the 2008 presidential
campaign of Senator John McCain.

"I try to look for places where there is both a financial and
political angle," Mr. Mehlman said. "So the fact that we were able to
get prominent Republicans and businesspeople, some of whom were
involved before but others who are new, helped in the effort both
financially and politically."

This is on top of a network of wealthy gay men and women who have a
history of giving money to philanthropic causes and in recent years
have shifted much of their effort to same-sex marriage.

Tim Gill, a billionaire software developer from Colorado, who is gay,
has assembled a network that has been likened to a gay version of
Emily's List, which supports female candidates. Mr. Gill's foundations
have distributed over $235 million to gay-related causes, with much
going to promote same-sex marriage, his advisers said.

"My husband and I are legally married in some states but obviously not
married in others, so that's a pretty big focus," Mr. Gill said.

David Bohnett, a co-founder of GeoCities and a gay philanthropist
here, has donated more than $4 million over the past 10 years to
candidates and organizations supporting same-sex marriage, his
advisers said.

And this week, Freedom to Marry, a group that advocates same-sex
marriage, announced on Thursday a $3 million fund-raising campaign
aimed at winning the five ballot initiatives and pushing the New
Jersey Legislature to override the veto by Gov. Chris Christie of a
same-sex bill, said Evan Wolfson, the founder of Freedom to Marry.

The first $250,000 is coming from Chris Hughes, a founder of Facebook,
and his fiancé, Sean Eldridge. "Chris and I certainly prioritize in
our contributing," Mr. Eldridge said. "Marriage is a top priority."

Mr. Brown said the same-sex-marriage cause had been greatly helped by
people like Mr. Hughes. "A couple of billionaires go a long way," he
said. But Mr. Wolfson said the "vast majority" of donations came from
small donors.

The broadening of the coalition also reflects a concerted effort by
backers of same-sex marriage to put straight and Republican supporters
out front. "Prominent straight people from entertainment were
crucial," said Dustin Lance Black, an Oscar-winning screenwriter who
wrote "8," a play re-enacting the courtroom challenge to Proposition
8. "We wanted people who were not the usual suspects."

A reading of Mr. Black's play here, which raised more than $2 million,
was notable for the participation of screen idol-type American actors
like George Clooney and Brad Pitt, who historically would have steered
clear of this kind of production. Norman Lear, the television
producer, wrote a $100,000 check even before Mr. Geffen had made his
commitment. "It was the right moment and the right way to go," he
said.

Ian Lovett contributed reporting from Los Angeles, and Kitty Bennett
from St. Petersburg, Fla.

There are 2 things you must know about how I work:
When you need me but do not want me,
I must stay.
When you want me but do not need me,
I must go.
- Nanny McPhee

-= The Creative World of Coleman Wheeler =-
http://www.angelfire.com/il/adventureclub

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

A Personal Note as Obama Speaks on Death of Trayvon Martin

From Coleman

A Personal Note as Obama Speaks on Death of Boy
By JACKIE CALMES and HELENE COOPER

NYTimes Published: March 23, 2012
WASHINGTON — President Obama did not mention race even as he addressed
it on Friday, instead letting his person and his words say it all: "If
I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon."

A rally was held on Thursday in Sanford, Fla., to protest handling of
the Trayvon Martin case.

Weighing in for the first time on the death of Trayvon Martin, the
unarmed black teenager shot and killed a month ago in Florida by a
neighborhood watch volunteer, Mr. Obama in powerfully personal terms
deplored the "tragedy" and, as a parent, expressed sympathy for the
boy's mother and father.

"I can only imagine what these parents are going through. And when I
think about this boy, I think about my own kids," Mr. Obama said.
"Every parent in America," he added, "should be able to understand why
it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this
and that everybody pulls together — federal, state and local — to
figure out exactly how this tragedy happened."

While speaking movingly from his perspective as the father of two
girls, one a teenager, Mr. Obama notably made no reference to the
racial context that has made the killing of Trayvon and the gunman's
claim of self-defense a rallying point for African-Americans. Since
Mr. Obama first began campaigning to be "president of all the people,"
as his advisers would put it when pressed on racial issues, he has
been generally reluctant to talk about race. And after his historic
election as the first black president, Mr. Obama learned the hard way
about the pitfalls of the chief executive opining on law enforcement
matters involving civil rights.

His remark at a news conference in the summer of 2009 that a white
police officer in Cambridge, Mass., had acted "stupidly" in arresting
a black Harvard law professor, Henry Louis Gates Jr., at his home led
to a national controversy that ended with Mr. Obama holding a
peacemaking "beer summit" with the two men at the White House.

Until Friday, Mr. Obama had refrained from commenting on the death of
Trayvon, 17, a high school student who was killed on the night of Feb.
26 in Sanford, Fla., near Orlando. George Zimmerman, 28, the
neighborhood watch volunteer, said he fired at Trayvon in
self-defense, although there is no apparent evidence that the
teenager, who held only a bag of Skittles candy and an iced tea, was
doing anything wrong.

But when a reporter asked about the case at a White House event
introducing Jim Yong Kim as his choice to be president of the World
Bank, Mr. Obama, who typically leaves such events ignoring the shouted
questions of reporters, seemed prepared.

"It was inevitable given the high-profile nature of this story that he
would be asked about it," his press secretary, Jay Carney, said later.
He added that Mr. Obama "had thought about it and was prepared to
answer that question when he got it."

Mr. Carney himself had refused for days to speak for Mr. Obama about
Trayvon's death, and other advisers on Friday likewise declined to
weigh in on the thinking at the White House about the case and its
repercussions. Mr. Obama's mostly white male inner circle has long
been reluctant to talk for their boss when the subject is race, given
how personal it is for him. One aide, speaking only on the grounds of
anonymity, said that there was no internal debate about how to respond
to Trayvon's death, but that Mr. Obama wanted to await the Justice
Department's initial review of the case and the announcement this week
by his attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., that the civil rights
division would investigate.

In his remarks, Mr. Obama endorsed the Justice Department
investigation as well as efforts by local and state agencies in
Florida to examine the circumstances of the shooting. Trayvon's
parents "are right to expect that all of us as Americans are going to
take this with the seriousness it deserves, and that we're going to
get to the bottom of exactly what happened," Mr. Obama said.

The president indicated his caution in not reacting earlier was due to
the hazards of addressing an issue under inquiry. "I'm the head of the
executive branch and the attorney general reports to me so I've got to
be careful about my statements to make sure that we're not impairing
any investigation that's taking place right now," he said.

The Rev. Al Sharpton, the civil rights leader who organized a rally on
Thursday night in Florida protesting the handling of the case and has
been working with the Martin family, praised Mr. Obama's comments and
took issue with black critics who say the president should have spoken
out sooner.

"We're trying to win a case, not just have the president make
high-profile statements," Mr. Sharpton said in an interview. "As one
who's been with the family, the president making a statement before
the Justice Department announced an investigation could have been used
by Zimmerman to say the White House was pre-judging a legal case."

Charles J. Ogletree, an African-American law professor at Harvard who
taught Mr. Obama there and remains a confidant, said there was no
doubt the president had been moved by Trayvon's death. "Nothing is
more frightening for a parent than losing a child," Professor Ogletree
said. "I know personally that he felt this pain, from the moment he
was made aware of the case." He added: "He has two young daughters.
This is personal."

Mr. Carney said he could not say whether Mr. Obama planned to call
Trayvon's parents, as some black activists have urged. Boyce D.
Watkins, a Syracuse University professor and the founder of the Your
Black World coalition, said Friday in a Twitter message, "If Trayvon's
mother were white, would Obama give her a call?"

Dr. Watkins, in an interview, called Mr. Obama's statement "a step in
the right direction," but added that the president could "squash a
great deal of the criticism" with a call to the parents. And while
applauding Mr. Obama's comment that his own son would look like
Trayvon, Dr. Watkins said the president's remarks were characteristic
of how Mr. Obama talks to black people.

"That's what I would refer to as a standard political smoke signal
that President Obama sends through the back door to the black
community," Dr. Watkins said. "He communicates to the black community
in code language. That's a subtle way of saying, 'I know this kid is
black.' "

Mr. Obama's comments appeared to prompt several of the Republicans
campaigning to run against him to weigh in against the shooting for
the first time. Both Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum said that based
on what they knew, Florida's "Stand Your Ground" self-defense law
should not apply in Mr. Zimmerman's case.

Speaking publicly for the first time on Friday evening, Craig A.
Sonner, Mr. Zimmerman's lawyer, said on CNN that he would not use the
Stand Your Ground defense should his client be charged in the
shooting. He said he would use self-defense.

Mr. Santorum, campaigning at a shooting range in Louisiana, which
holds a presidential primary on Saturday, called the decision of local
officials not to immediately prosecute Mr. Zimmerman "another chilling
example of horrible decisions made by people in this process." Mitt
Romney, the Republican front-runner, told reporters in Louisiana that
the shooting was "a terrible tragedy, unnecessary, uncalled for and
inexplicable at this point."

Richard A. Oppel Jr. contributed reporting from West Monroe and Shreveport, La.

There are 2 things you must know about how I work:
When you need me but do not want me,
I must stay.
When you want me but do not need me,
I must go.
- Nanny McPhee

-= The Creative World of Coleman Wheeler =-
http://www.angelfire.com/il/adventureclub

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Fwd: [New post] Notes on a General Theory of the Social Cycle

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: ThinkMarkets
Date: Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Subject: [New post] Notes on a General Theory of the Social Cycle
To: majors.bruce@gmail.com


New post on ThinkMarkets

<http://s.wordpress.com/i/emails/blavatar-default.png>

Notes on a General Theory of the Social Cycle

by gcallah

by Gene Callahan

Monday past at our colloquium Andreas Hoffman presented a fascinating paper attempting to depict Austrian Business Cycle Theory as a special case of a more general business cycle theory based upon Hayek's later work on spontaneous orders. Hoffman's general idea (I won't do it justice in this brief summary, so please have a look at the paper) is that business cycles occur when a "displacement" creates a situation in which people are uncertain how to make "adjustments" to move back closer to equilibrium. The period during which people are groping about for what to do creates the slump, and the upturn comes, of course, once they have gotten the hang of the new situation.

A lively discussion followed, during which Israel Kirzner, Mario Rizzo, and others pressured Hoffman on just what he meant by an "adjustment," a "displacement," and why these things would create a cycle, rather than merely ongoing "churning," to use Kirzner's word. (He also mentioned Lachmann's notion of the "kaleidic society" in this context.)

Riding home on the subway afterwards, what struck me was that we lacked a general framework of accepted definitions for talking about things like adjustments, displacements, and social cycles. (I will justify the use of "social" later.) As soon as I noticed this, the following thoughts entered my mind, essentially all at once. Some of them were drawn directly from the discussion. And they are all very preliminary: but that is one thing that blogs are for, is it not? In any case, feedback on these presently sketchy ideas is welcomed. Read more of this post

gcallah | March 21, 2012 at 2:11 pm | Categories: Austrian Business Cycle, Austrian Economics, Hayek | URL: http://wp.me/pmseG-1mr

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://thinkmarkets.wordpress.com/2012/03/21/notes-on-a-general-theory-of-the-social-cycle/

Thanks for flying with <http://s.wordpress.com/i/emails/wp-footericon.png> WordPress.com
<http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=thinkmarkets.wordpress.com&blog=5351758&post=5235&subd=thinkmarkets&ref=&email=1&email_o=wpcom>

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

[I-S] A Fractal Comparison of Real and Austrian Business Cycle Models

--J.

http://paws.wcu.edu/mulligan/www/FractalRBC.htm

A Fractal Comparison of Real and Austrian Business Cycle Models

 

Robert F. Mulligan, Ph.D.

Department of Business Computer Information Systems & Economics

Western Carolina University

College of Business

Cullowhee, North Carolina 28723

Phone: 828-227-3329

Fax: 828-227-7414

Email: mulligan@wcu.edu

 

Acknowledgements

Robert F. Mulligan is associate professor of economics in the Department of Business Computer Information Systems and Economics at Western Carolina University College of Business and a research associate of the State University of New York at Binghamton.  Thanks are due to Patrick Hays of the Department of Accounting, Finance, and Entrepreneurship for the program performing Lo's modified R/S test for stochastic dependence.  Helpful comments from Patrick Hays, Steve Henson, Steven Miller, and Michael Smith, are gratefully acknowledged.  The author retains responsibility for any errors or omissions.

 

Abstract

This paper examines macromonetary data for fractal character and stochastic dependence.  Lo's modified R/S test for stochastic dependence is used to explore the data's fractal properties along with five fractal analysis techniques for estimating the Hurst exponent, Mandelbrot-Lévy characteristic exponent, and fractal dimension.  Techniques employed are rescaled-range analysis, power-spectral density analysis, roughness-length analysis, the variogram or structure function method, and wavelet analysis.  Monthly data is analyzed over the 1959-2006 range and a quarterly dataset extending from 1947-2006 is also examined.  Strong evidence is found for stochastic dependence in the monetary aggregates, which suggests an activist monetary policy, and for nominal consumption expenditures, supporting Austrian business cycle theory.  No evidence for stochastic dependence in investment productivity is found, and this finding is invariant to whether productivity ratios are adjusted to account for credit expansion.

 

__._,_.___
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity:

Visit Your Group
Report any problems, suggestions or abuse to Individual-Sovereignty-owner@yahoogroups.com

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
.
__,_._,___

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

[New post] Notes on a General Theory of the Social Cycle

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: ThinkMarkets
Date: Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Subject: [New post] Notes on a General Theory of the Social Cycle
To: majors.bruce@gmail.com


New post on ThinkMarkets

<http://s.wordpress.com/i/emails/blavatar-default.png>

Notes on a General Theory of the Social Cycle

by gcallah

by Gene Callahan

Monday past at our colloquium Andreas Hoffman presented a fascinating paper attempting to depict Austrian Business Cycle Theory as a special case of a more general business cycle theory based upon Hayek's later work on spontaneous orders. Hoffman's general idea (I won't do it justice in this brief summary, so please have a look at the paper) is that business cycles occur when a "displacement" creates a situation in which people are uncertain how to make "adjustments" to move back closer to equilibrium. The period during which people are groping about for what to do creates the slump, and the upturn comes, of course, once they have gotten the hang of the new situation.

A lively discussion followed, during which Israel Kirzner, Mario Rizzo, and others pressured Hoffman on just what he meant by an "adjustment," a "displacement," and why these things would create a cycle, rather than merely ongoing "churning," to use Kirzner's word. (He also mentioned Lachmann's notion of the "kaleidic society" in this context.)

Riding home on the subway afterwards, what struck me was that we lacked a general framework of accepted definitions for talking about things like adjustments, displacements, and social cycles. (I will justify the use of "social" later.) As soon as I noticed this, the following thoughts entered my mind, essentially all at once. Some of them were drawn directly from the discussion. And they are all very preliminary: but that is one thing that blogs are for, is it not? In any case, feedback on these presently sketchy ideas is welcomed. Read more of this post

gcallah | March 21, 2012 at 2:11 pm | Categories: Austrian Business Cycle, Austrian Economics, Hayek | URL: http://wp.me/pmseG-1mr

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://thinkmarkets.wordpress.com/2012/03/21/notes-on-a-general-theory-of-the-social-cycle/

Thanks for flying with <http://s.wordpress.com/i/emails/wp-footericon.png> WordPress.com
<http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=thinkmarkets.wordpress.com&blog=5351758&post=5235&subd=thinkmarkets&ref=&email=1&email_o=wpcom>

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Jump Start The Economy With Tax Relief, Not Tax Reform

"How can the Fair Tax "jump-start" anything if it allows the federal government to take the same amount of money from the American people? What difference does it make if the spending addiction of politicians and bureaucrats is fed with money generated by a national sales tax or a payroll tax? In either case, the money is taken from the people and is no longer theirs to spend. Americans do not need tax replacements or tax reforms. Americans need tax relief!"

Jump Start The Economy With Tax Relief, Not Tax Reform
March 24th, 2012
by R. Lee Wrights

BURNET, Texas (March 24) – I have heard it said by some that the "revenue-neutral" Fair Tax will "jump-start the economy for the next 100 years." That is simply not true. No tax has every jump started any economy. Taxes have the opposite effect. They stall the economy by stiffing incentive and creativity. The only thing a tax stimulates is a desire to avoid it by those who the tax is imposed upon.

What this country needs is tax relief, not tax reform. All you have to do is look at American history to see the proof of this. When taxes are reduced, and the nation is at peace, the economy thrives and people prosper. When taxes are raised, and the nation is at war, the economy stagnates. There is no escape from these simple economic realities.

Daniel Mitchell, a Heritage Foundation senior fellow, examined three periods in U.S. history and found, "There is a distinct pattern throughout American history: When tax rates are reduced, the economy's growth rate improves and living standards increase." And while lower tax rates are important to economic growth, they are not the only critical issue. "Both the level of government spending and where that money goes are very important," he wrote.

We also know that cutting taxes, along with cutting regulation and eliminating trade barriers, was a key factor in fostering economic booms in Great Britain, New Zealand and Ireland during the 1980s and 90s. Any time taxes and regulations are decreased; the citizens who drive a nations economy become wealthier. Indeed, the very signs of economic recovery and boon are a wealthier people and a poorer government.

Fair Tax fans are proud to defend their proposal because it's "revenue neutral." It will generate as much revenue as is currently collected with the income tax and other federal taxes. But that's just the problem; it's not a tax cut, so it won't stimulate the economy. Indeed, it's likely to create havoc by suddenly changing the incentives to spend and save. It's like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. All the Fair Tax does is change the method a bloated federal government employs to extort money from the people. It merely rearranges the already staggering burden of government on the shoulders of American taxpayers.

The economy will continue to flounder so long as those who run government think they're smarter than us, and are better judges of how we should spend our money. Economic growth and prosperity will continue to stagnate so long as politicians can use money wrung from taxpayers to subsidize the businesses and industries that finance their campaigns. America will never regain its economic preeminence so long as the tax code is used for social engineering, to manipulate people into buying hybrid cars, saving for their retirement, or investing in historical buildings.

How can the Fair Tax "jump-start" anything if it allows the federal government to take the same amount of money from the American people? What difference does it make if the spending addiction of politicians and bureaucrats is fed with money generated by a national sales tax or a payroll tax? In either case, the money is taken from the people and is no longer theirs to spend. Americans do not need tax replacements or tax reforms. Americans need tax relief!

The only thing the Fair Tax is sure to jump-start is more federal spending, because as Milton Friedman noted, "In the long run government will spend whatever the tax system will raise, plus as much more as it can get away with."


R. Lee Wrights, 53, a libertarian writer and political activist, is seeking the presidential nomination because he believes the Libertarian message in 2012 must be a loud, clear and unequivocal call to stop all war. To that end he has pledged that 10 percent of all donations to his campaign will be spent for ballot access so that the stop all war message can be heard in all 50 states. Wrights is a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and co-founder and editor of the free speech online magazine Liberty For All. Born in Winston-Salem, N.C., he now lives and works in Texas.

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/03/lee-wrights-jump-start-the-economy-with-tax-relief-not-tax-reform/comment-page-1/

Not Even Your Backyard is Safe From . . .Them

"What Biel enjoyed the privilege of paying annual rent to the government for is squatter's rights.  He -- and you, and I-- may occupy a house or use a piece of property under certain conditions -- conditions subject to being changed at whim of the landlord, the true owner, the government. We have every right to object -- so long as we ultimately comply. If the government says you may not keep an old car -- or just a car that's not currently registered -- on (cough) your property, then you'd better comply, or else. The "or else" being an escalator of coercion that begins with the little love notes received by Biel, followed in time by men in costumes with guns who will make sure you do comply, even if it means killing you to make it so. Which is what will happen if you have the audacity to resist -- to actually defend (cough) your property."

Not Even Your Backyard is Safe From . . .Them
March 15, 2012
By eric

Robert Biel, 57, of Brevard County, Florida, is going to spend the next year in prison. He must have done something pretty bad, right? Beat someone up, maybe? Steal a car?

Er… shoplift a six pack?

No, something far worse – in the eyes of our protectors in government:

He kept a bunch of old cars in his yard.

His yard. Not someone else's. His – you know, the land he gets to pay endless rent to the government for as a condition of the perpetuation of the fiction that he's the owner. Except of course, he's not – and this business about sending him to the clink for a year proves it.

Biel stores old cars on his land, picking parts to earn money. The county commissars will not have it. First came the harassing letters. Then came the harassing fines. Next came the harassing men with guns – who took Biel to jail for "noncompliance." He was released, but only on condition that he "clean up" his (cough) yard. When he failed to do so, he was sentenced to a year at Hotel Graybar for "violating probation." A felony. (See here for the full new story.)

"It's my stuff on my own property," Biel argued.

Well, he's just been educated about who is the real owner of "his" (cough) property.

What Biel enjoyed the privilege of paying annual rent to the government for is squatter's rights.  He -- and you, and I-- may occupy a house or use a piece of property under certain conditions -- conditions subject to being changed at whim of the landlord, the true owner, the government. We have every right to object -- so long as we ultimately comply. If the government says you may not keep an old car -- or just a car that's not currently registered -- on (cough) your property, then you'd better comply, or else. The "or else" being an escalator of coercion that begins with the little love notes received by Biel, followed in time by men in costumes with guns who will make sure you do comply, even if it means killing you to make it so. Which is what will happen if you have the audacity to resist -- to actually defend (cough) your property.

It's important to note that no one -- not even the government -- accused Biel of actually harming anyone. You know, of having committed a crime. Well, at least not a crime in the old sense of the term, when "crime" necessarily entailed "victim." Biel victimized no one. In fact, he helped people -- by finding and selling car parts DIY mechanics needed to keep their cars running. But of course, you must have government permission to do that -- and of course, pay the necessary tribute.

Biel did neither.

So off to the hoosegow he goes -- and in all likelihood, back on the streets will go a real criminal, in order to make room for the made-up kind. American jails and prisons are full to overflowing with non-violent, non-criminals -- people who harmed no one but transgressed some arbitrary edict. Since there's not enough space for all, the revolving door of justice swings rapidly -- early releasing a Golden Horde of violent thugs, so that pot smokers and guys like Biel, who annoyed the local Aesthetics Police, can get a bed.

This makes sense -- from the government's perspective. A real criminal is a liability -- to the government. He creates no wealth that can be confiscated and costs money to house and is a physical threat to the camp guards (whoops, "corrections officers"). But someone like Biel is profitable. He has assets to confiscate -- and he (probably) is not physically violent -- not being a real criminal.

This is key to understanding the apparently odd excessive attention the government and its enforcers give to penny ante "offenses" committed by people such as Biel. But it is excessive precisely because of the profit motive – from speeding tickets all the way up to the soon-to-be-here huge fines for failing to pay tribute to an HMO, as per ObamaCare. The government doesn't give a damn about real criminals because real criminals don't have anything to take away. That they create actual victims and cause real harm is a matter of complete indifference to the government. Remember: Members of the Inner Party have little to fear from real criminals. They are protected by multiple layers of security -- provided at our expense. Murder, assault, rape, burglary -- abstractions merely. Realities for you and I -- but we are the Outer Party. So different standards apply.

The criminals -- the real ones -- are the proles, of course. And the proles do not matter at all. They have nothing to lose -- other than their physical freedom.

But Biel -- and you and I -- have several others things to lose first, before we lose our physical freedom. Which is why government is so inordinately interested in us, so zealous and unrelenting in its prosecutions of us.

You can jump a counter at a 7-11 with a baseball bat, beat the crap out of the clerk and pilfer the register -- and end up doing less hard time than a guy like Biel, who dared to keep a bunch of old cars at his place. Not an exaggeration. It happens with depressing regularity. Watch the news; read a few stories about the latest home invasion/killing. Nine times out of ten, the criminals will be parolees. Let loose after having finished a small portion of their pled-down sentence.

To make room for a guy like Robert Biel.

Throw it in the Woods?

http://ericpetersautos.com/2012/03/15/not-even-your-backyard-is-safe-from-them/