When reading Cory Heidelberger's attack on Kristi Noem for refusing to continue down the Keysian road of economic destruction, you never hear him glorify Senator John Thune for siding with the Democrats. Heidelberger says Noem's vote against "reopening the government and averting global economic catastrophe" inspried him to write this:
Dear Home Federal Bank:
I know you want me to pay my mortgage this month, which is a good thing. However, your request for payment of the debt I’ve incurred does not include any discussion of a plan for me to make more money or to finance future purchases. Therefore, I am voting against paying my mortgage. Thank you.
Sincerely....
Feel free to try that out on your banker, and see how their loan officers vote the next time you come in for financing.
So how would the tactic of telling your bank that you must have to have more loans or else you won't make your next mortgage payment work Cory? I would ask him directly, but the totalitarian has banned me from his web site for asking such questions.
Those who can't make loan payments are usually those who have lost the revenue source, but such was not the case with this government shutdown. For those of you who work, did you still have taxes taken out of your pay check and sent to DC? Of course you did. Kristi Noem did not vote to end tax revenues. And if the government shutdown meant that the government could not spend those tax revenues, would they not have more money available to make debt payments? Of course they did. So why was the media putting out the propaganda that we need to raise the debt ceiling or default on our debt? Why hasn't the media instead told the truth? But no, there role in this game was to promote the lie that the tea party is trying to destroy America and the global economy?
What Noem was trying to do is save America's economy from those globalists who wants to destroy America and set up a Keynsian/fascist/socialist world-state:
Keynes’ book, End of Laissez-Faire, was his most pronounced and clearcut advocacy of socialism. This Keynes work was not only enthusiastically embraced by Fascism but was listed as required reading by the League for Industrial Democracy and the Rand School of Social Science in the United States (both Fabian socialist). Harvard economic and sociological courses have repeatedly used the End of Laissez-Faire as required reading for undergraduates.
...
Norman Thomas, leading spokesman for avowed socialists, as contrasted with secret socialists like Keynes, states:
. . both the communists and fascists revolutions definitely abolished laissez-faire capitalism in favor of one or another kind and degree of state capitalism. . . . In varying degree, these basic enterprises were collectivized under the undemocratic control of an elite, which had at its disposal all the powers of a police state.
Norman Thomas correctly puts Nazism in the anti-private enterprise camp:
The social and economic consequences of fascist triumph under the German form were revolutionary, unless one insists on reserving the word revolutionary for a triumph of the working class. In no way was Hitler the tool of big business. He was its lenient master. So was Mussolini except that he was weaker.
Norman Thomas’ admission that Communists and Fascists have a common result to “abolish Laissez-Faire”—is precisely what Keynes had in mind. Thomas, of course, fails to include socialists in the above category since it would be a reflection upon himself and his comrades. Nevertheless the family resemblance is there. Keynes is the umbrella under which the Big Government advocates find shelter, be they Nazi, Fascist, Communist, Socialist or combinations of all four.
I would ask, "what was Senator Thune thinking", but I must conclude that he was not thinking at all, just like Cory Heidelberger.
Comments