Posted by: graemebird | December 8, 2008

Uncharacteristically Un-Churchillian.

Here is what Churchill said:

“But for everyone, surely, what we have gone through in this period–I am addressing myself to the School–surely from this period of ten months, this is the lesson: Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never–in nothing, great or small, large or petty–never give in, except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”


Here is what, the usually Churchillian, David Horowitz said: 

It’s Over. Let’s move on. 

This was my reply:

Maybe you could change the name of the magazine to Or something like that.

The Donofrio case is just one case of about 17 and counting. The Donofrio case didn’t go after Caliph-Select Barry-the-Ist (The Usurper) directly. So you have Clarence. Who is closest to natural law in my view. Because he doesn’t tend too much to defer to the States. Whereas you would have had the other originalists, closer to original intent, which means that, when in doubt they will defer to the states. And then you have the leftists who just make it up every day anew and are in open defiance of the oaths they have taken.

So its not surprising that when they all sat down the majority didn’t think that particular case could fly.

But its not up to the Supreme Court alone to defend and protect the constitution. The fact is a lot of people have taken that oath. 

The framers never imagined that the legal system would become a vast make-work affair for lawyers. A make-work leviathan, and an outrageous attempt for lawyers to make themselves a class of their own, superior to normal mortals, in this particular sphere. This is one reason Caliph Barry-the-1st (The Usurper) is instinctively being deferred to by one judge after another.

That the framers never anticipated this vast system of legal parasitism, unrivaled in scope within any other country in the world, is the reason they never specified, step by step, procedures for taking an usurper down. 

Americans mustn’t let the lawyers lay claim to their constitution and hog it for themselves. For the constitution belongs to all Americans and ought not be given away to this tawdry and parasitical clique, on the basis of all sorts of obstructionism, that the lawyers have developed for their own base interests, in the intervening years and decades since the constitution was written.

The framers would have wanted the Usurper taken down from his foolish pretenses, by any means necessary. There are at least 15 more cases where that one came from. And its just a matter of finding the case that the originalists on the court can all live with.

But on the other hand a righteous President could step down, hand the Presidency to Dick Cheney. And Dick Cheney issue an executive order that this matter be investigated fully, and he remain President until it has been checked out to saturation level. 

Then President Cheney could invite legal challenges to himself!!!!! See what the Supreme Court had to say about that!!!! See how the Supreme Court liked the cases resulting from such an act of bravery. This may appear ridiculous. But its not. Since there is no precedent or instruction, so matters are open to innovation.

The point is that all branches are sworn to defend and protect. And not just the Supreme Court. And everyone, including every citizen, ought to be doing what they can.

“It’s Over.”

But you have taught us, oh great one, that we are Western Man. Not given over to such notions of fate and determinism. We be masters of our own destiny. Such soothsaying is unhelpful. Remember what Margaret Thatcher said the George Bush the elder?

She said: “Look George, this is no time to go wobbly.” 

I’m suggesting, and I’m sure that some others will back me up on this, that finally, after all these years we are witnessing David going wobbly. I’m sorry you had to hear it from me but the cosmic vibes from your own office are too strong. And there are others that will back me up on this matter I have no doubt.

Look David you ought to stop referring to us as your critics. My side of the argument will be divided between your exacerbated fans, and your exacerbated erstwhile fans. If you viewed us this way, you might be open to being persuaded, to thinking about taking under consideration, the possibility of the potential of taking a good long took at the subject ,anew and with fresh eyes.



  1. Bird

    you are a right. There is no way he was born in Hawaii since no hospital there has any record of him or his Mother attending. Those Americans will take this clown down sooner or later. And probably sooner.

    Hey have you seen this link?

  2. As a matter of fact I did catch that link Tillman. Thats a terrific link.

  3. Birdie:

    Tillman wants to know what you id with the copper wires in you house?

  4. “Turkey has really plunged into the abyss this time. He’s changed Tillman’s comment to the exact opposite of what he said *and then* agreed with it. He planted a Dorothy Dixer in Tillman’s comment”

    What an outrageous conspiracy theory Jason Soon. Hey how about tell me the one about Palin not having a baby. That it was her daughters baby and not her own.

    This is a conspiracy theory thats been sanctified as socially alright in leftist circles.

  5. Graeme

    Obama is an usurper.

    thanks for the insight.

  6. Murray, there is a difference between a hot off the press, probably forged, Certificate of Live Birth and a regular Birth Certificate. As far as Horowitz goes, I think he is in a much better position to understand the dynamics happening than you are, given the fact he was raised in a home with parents who were card carrying communists. Unless you have a degree in Psychiatry, I don’t think you know what a “delusional paranoid” personality is, but you may well be one. And you certainly are clueless about what a “moonbat” is. Since you offer no evidence to support your claims, I’d say YOU are the moonbat.

  7. tillman, you just demonstrate that you don’t have Murray’s language skills and are just ignorant and rude.

  8. I may let the last one go on account of you being knew. But no lying on this forum Murray. You know damn well that the Hawaiians have gone out of their way, to choose their words clearly. to not divulge any such information. It is a lie to say that they have confirmed his birth in Hawaii. Thats a lie. Don’t do it again. Like I say I may wipe your post regardless of you being new here. But I may not also.

  9. “Jeepers creepers, the Wall St bailouts arent helping at all;”

    Not only are they not helping rog. They are making the situation worse. Its fine to have Sinclair say I’m harmless. But what a crap profession he is in. None of these guys will stand up and vigourously beat up on their useless colleagues like nick gruen and the idiot 8.

    Its like you guys are too lazy to learn your material. You still half believe the Keynesian stuff. And some of you still halfway think that one (consumer) SPENDS ones way out of a recession. Tell them Sinclair. Tell them Jason. Tell them they are wrong and if you have to learn the stuff yourself so you can up and tell them with confidence WELL DO THAT.

    Here we have Paulson, Obama, Swan, Bernanke, Summers, and Rudd. All of them stepping up to vandalise our respective economies on the basis of having things wrong in this way.

    It is BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS spending that ends recessions. It is the only thing that can. Business-to-business spending ought to outdo by a small amount the previous peak in nominal terms and by even more in terms of real resources.

    This implies cutting consumer spending. It implies slashing government spending. It implies asking people to save and not spend. It implies also the suspension of dividends, since you want the firms spending on their business. This is what creates the conditions for recovery.

    There is not even any doubt about this. You end a recession by cutting consumer spending, dividends, government spending and taxes on retained earnings. Yes, monetary policy in the form of some judicious monetization is part of the solution. But they have the fiscal side of things exactly backwards.

    How old is Summers now? Gruen? Bernanke? et al? And they haven’t figured that out yet?

    If they haven’t sorted that out yet they are not going to sort it out in a month of Sundays. Meanwhile the appalling economic vandalism will continue.

    So we have no choice but to take the Usurper down on the pot luck that whoever winds up getting elected is obsessive about cutting non-defense spending.

  10. Dear GMB,

    Why don’t you let hoosiearmymon decide if I am lying rather than deleting my response to her post? Are you afraid she might think what I say makes perfect sense?

    Besides, her reply to my original post makes her look crazy because it is no longer there and nobody knows what she is talking about.

    Best regards.



  11. Listen fella. The deal is this. You are not allowed to lie on this site.

    You knew quite well that the Hawaii officials that have claimed to have seen Barry’s birth certificate have not said where he was born one way or another. You know very well that the State Department has made no announcement. But you chose to lie anyway. And you are not allowed to lie on this forum.

  12. Dear GMB,

    You seem to know a lot about economics. I have a few questions concerning one of your previous posts.

    “It is BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS spending that ends recessions. It is the only thing that can. Business-to-business spending ought to outdo by a small amount the previous peak in nominal terms and by even more in terms of real resources.

    This implies cutting consumer spending. It implies slashing government spending. It implies asking people to save and not spend. It implies also the suspension of dividends, since you want the firms spending on their business. This is what creates the conditions for recovery.”

    If you slash consumer spending, which businesses will buy the DVD’s, the iPods, the TVs, the consumers usually buy? Which businesses will go to the movies the consumers usually go to? Which businesses will eat in the restaurants the consumers usually eat in?

    If you slash government spending. Which businesses will spend on the roads, and trains their employees use to go to work? Which businesses will spend on the airports and see ports through which their supplies and products transit? Which businesses will maintain the schools their employees send their children to?

    Best regards


    • We want to set up a series of steps a little bit like the narrative that goes into the Keynesian multiplier. But we want to take out any of the sleight of hand. So think of the following as a series of freeze-frames. Where we move economic activity forward one frame at a time and freeze it, so we can subject it to some sort of analysis.

      Lets look at the components of the spending we are looking at.

      We will say that Gross Domestic Revenue = G plus Gross I (Business To Business Spending) plus Consumer Spending +Exports minus Imports.

      Supposing we could freeze GDR in nominal terms. Leaving net exports aside that would mean that if government spending or consumption spending went up, business to business spending would be damaged. What you are trying to do with monetary policy is to not allow GDR to fall. But you don’t want it to grow too fast either. Since that is inflationary. But you need a greater proportion of GDR to be private business-to-business spending. Else you do not have the resources you need going into business improvement.

      Look at it from the point of view of if you were a nation of small businessmen. Supposing if people have cash-balances they like to keep on average, but the rest of the money they will spend. Hence we can analyze this from the point of view of some amount of money that is always moving in discrete steps. We will assume 100% backing and assume also that any saved money is immediately automatically spent by a borrower. So we don’t have this Keynesian sleight-of-hand where savings are considered leakage.

      Now going with this analysis we imagine you get some revenue. Lets say it is ten ounces of silver. Your small business spends the money, not on consumption, but on something for the business. Pays some wages and does some maintenance. Gets the place painted. Fixes up the leaky roof. Leases a small hand fork. Puts in some racking.

      The next small businessman gets some of that revenue. He has a fundamental choice. He can spend the money on consumption or he can spend that money on something for his business. We might say he can spend internally or externally. He can consume the resources or his business can. And then when that money goes to the next small business. same basic choice. Does he spend on himself or on his business? Or rather WHAT PROPORTION gets consumed by his business, or by himself, in each discrete step that we are talking about.

      (There is some more that can be said about that proportion going to wages. But I won’t further complicate things at this point and to follow the money going to wages doesn’t change in principle what we are saying here.)

      The thing is that wages are paid out of the money that you spend WITHIN your business. Not on the money that you spendson yourself. Wages are paid out of the money spent WITHIN and not WITHOUT of your businesses.

      We made an assumption about savings above so we would not lose track of it. We see that WAGES ARE PAID OUT OF SAVINGS as well. Since in our system savings lead to spending by borrowers within business. Whereas spending on consumer goods does not contain spending on wages going with this discrete step methodology.


      Now we see that from an accounting point of view, if we have people spending money on themselves, then that becomes someone elses revenue in the next discrete step. But in that first instance, this consumer spending becomes revenue, without spending of the sort that one day with become cost of goods sold. Hence it is the sort of spending that lifts profit rates. Since profit is revenue less cost of goods sold. But we see that the sort of spending within the business is spending that doesn’t lift profit rates. Since it is revenue, but it is also the sort of spending that will be one day classified under cost of goods sold. Hence all this extra spending on consumer goods and government spending, that our dumb-economists are trying to bring about, will indeed lift pre-tax profit rates. There is no doubt about that. In a cosmetic way government spending and extra-consumer-spending will lift the profit share.

      But this sort of change to spending cannot make the businesses themselves more productive in real terms. And it cannot lead to a recovery of employment and real wages in total. Only the spending WITHIN the business can do that. The new machinery, the new stock, the extra maintenance, the hiring of new staff, the new computer system, the new basement, and so forth.

  13. Dear Mr Bird
    How can I become as smart as you?

    • Discover God Timmy. But hope for reincarnation and miracles more generally.

  14. Dear Mr Timmy,

    I good first course of action would be to read the entire works of Graeme bird at this website. If that has not increased your IQ by 10 points then nothing will. Unfortunately I suspect it won’t.

  15. Dear Mr Bird
    is there anyone on the australian blogs who is as smart as you?

    • CL is pretty close. Janet Albrechtsen. One or two people on Jennifer Marohasy’s blog. The fellow who calls himself Hissink particularly. Gerry Jackson. Steve Edwards when he grows up. But he’s still a bit too little yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: