Posts tagged ‘Thomas Sowell’

September 9, 2012

Obama’s Dreams – Thomas Sowell

by Thomas Sowell

After reading Barack Obama’s book “Dreams from My Father,” it became painfully clear that he has not been searching for the truth, because he assumed from an early age that he had already found the truth — and now it was just a question of filling in the details and deciding how to change things.

Obama did not simply happen to encounter a lot of people on the far left fringe during his life. As he spells out in his book, he actively sought out such people. There is no hint of the slightest curiosity on his part about other visions of the world that might be weighed against the vision he had seized upon.

As Professor Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago Law School has pointed out, Obama made no effort to take part in the marketplace of ideas with other faculty members when he was teaching a law course there. What would be the point, if he already knew the truth and knew that they were wrong?

This would be a remarkable position to take, even for a learned scholar who had already spent decades canvassing a vast amount of information and views on many subjects. But Obama was already doctrinaire at a very early age — and ill-informed or misinformed on both history and economics.

His statement in “Dreams from My Father” about how white men went to Africa to “drag away the conquered in chains” betrays his ignorance of African history.

The era of the Atlantic slave trade and the era of European conquests across the continent of Africa were different eras. During the era of the Atlantic slave trade, most of Africa was ruled by Africans, who sold some of their slaves to white men.

European conquests in Africa had to wait until Europeans found some way to survive lethal African diseases, to which they lacked resistance. Only after medical science learned to deal with these diseases could the era of European conquests spread across sub-Saharan Africa. But the Atlantic slave trade was over by then.

There was no reason why Barack Obama had to know this. But there was also no reason for him to be shooting off his mouth without knowing what he was talking about.

Similarly with Obama’s characterization of the Nile as “the world’s greatest river.” The Nile is less than 10 percent longer than the Amazon, but the Amazon delivers more than 50 times as much water into the Atlantic as the Nile delivers into the Mediterranean. The Nile could not accommodate the largest ships, even back in Roman times, much less the aircraft carriers of today that can sail up the Hudson River and dock in midtown Manhattan.

When Obama wrote that many people “had been enslaved only because of the color of their skin,” he was repeating a common piece of gross misinformation. For thousands of years, people enslaved other people of the same race as themselves, whether in Europe, Asia, Africa or the Western Hemisphere.

Europeans enslaved other Europeans for centuries before the first African was brought in bondage to the Western Hemisphere. The very word “slave” is derived from the name of a European people once widely held in bondage, the Slavs.

As for economics, Obama thought that Indonesians would be worse off after Europeans came in, used up their natural resources and then left them too poor to continue the modern way of life to which they had become accustomed, or to resume their previous way of life, after their previous skills had atrophied.

This fear of European “exploitation” prevailed widely in the Third World in the middle of the 20th century. But, by the late 20th century, the falseness of that view had been demonstrated so plainly and so often, in countries around the world, that even socialist and communist governments began opening their economies to foreign investments. This often led to rising economic growth rates that lifted millions of people out of poverty.

Barack Obama is one of those people who are often wrong but never in doubt. When he burst upon the national political scene as a presidential candidate in 2008, even some conservatives were impressed by his confidence.

But confident ignorance is one of the most dangerous qualities in a leader of a nation. If he has the rhetorical skills to inspire the same confidence in himself by others, then you have the ingredients for national disaster.

via Obama’s Dreams – Thomas Sowell – [page].

March 30, 2012

Liberal, Just Another Word For Stupid

by BurtPrelutsky

Burt Prelutsky
humor columnist

I CAN’T TELL YOU how many times I’ve asked myself how it is that so many of my fellow Americans can actually go out and vote for people as ignorant as Patty Murray, Barbara Boxer and Hank Johnson. Rep. Johnson, in case he’s slipped your mind, is the Democrat representing Georgia’s 4th congressional district, whose claim to fame is that during a House Armed Services Committee hearing, he asked Admiral Robert Willard if he shared the congressman’s concern that adding 8,000 servicemen and their families to the 175,000 civilians on the island could cause Guam to tip over and capsize.

The truth is, even if you ignore their politics, it would be hard to imagine any group of people in which this trio would not stand out by reason of their ignorance.

But just as often, I’ve found myself wondering why Fox keeps offering up the likes of Juan Williams, Leslie Marshall, Geraldo Rivera, Alan Colmes, Marc Lamont Hill and Bob Beckel. I sit at home listening to these donkeys braying the same predictable talking points to each and every question, and I find myself dismissing Fox’s claims to being fair and balanced. If that’s their intention, I say to myself, why is it they never invite some intelligent people on to present the liberal side of issues?

Then it struck me. There is no intelligent argument that can be made for liberalism. All any of them can do is parrot the same insipid sound bites dreamed up by the likes of Barack Obama, James Carville, David Axelrod, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and regurgitated ad nauseam by Jay Carney.

There is a very good reason why there’s nobody on the Left who is comparable to Charles Krauthammer, Mark Levin, Thomas Sowell, Brit Hume, Ann Coulter, Dennis Prager, Walter Williams, Mark Steyn, Steve Hayes, Bernie Goldberg, Harry Stein, Michael Medved, Mark Alexander, Bret Baier, Michelle Malkin and Lou Dobbs. The reason is that liberals never think for themselves. Aside from plotting how to game the system in order to steal elections, none of them ever has an original thought. Even questioning Barack Obama is regarded as an act of heresy.

What’s more, I can prove it. Every liberal in public life has called for abolishing the Second Amendment. Now why is that? I happen to know a number of liberals who own guns. What’s more, rich liberals who don’t own guns have security people on their payroll who carry them. Even anti-gun advocate Sen. Dianne Feinstein was once found to be packing a heater in her purse, and yet, with a single voice, liberals squeal for the abolition of all firearms. The only reason for all this hypocrisy is because some influential liberal along the way decided it was a divisive issue which could be used as a wedge between them and the rest of us.

How else could a Chicago punk at a San Francisco fundraiser be so certain that he would derive laughter, applause and huge campaign donations, from a bunch of limp-wristed fat cats by demeaning his betters as “those who cling to their guns and their religion”? For good measure, he was well-guarded at the event by a squad of Secret Service agents armed to the teeth.

If you still question my statement that liberalism is synonymous with stupidity, imagine a TV network whose intellectual heavyweights are Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz and Al Sharpton, or a now defunct radio network that headlined Al Franken and Janeane Garofalo, whose combined IQ would have to climb a stepladder and then stand on its tippy toes in order to reach triple digits.

The truth of the matter is that if liberals were as smart as they claim, they’d be conservatives.

via BurtPrelutsky.com.

December 22, 2011

Thomas Sowell: I’ll Take Gingrich over Romney

Economist and conservative author Thomas Sowell says voters should disregard Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s “baggage” and support the former House speaker because defeating President Obama in 2012 is crucial to America’s future.

Sowell cites Gingrich’s solid record of “concrete accomplishments,” which he argues makes him a stronger candidate than former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who pushed through one of the liberal healthcare programs in the nation.

Sowell, one of the nation’s most respected conservative columnists and a senior fellow on public policy at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, writes in his nationally syndicated column: “What the media call Gingrich’s ‘baggage’ concerns largely his personal life and the fact that he made a lot of money running a consulting firm after he left Congress.

“But how much weight should we give to this stuff when we are talking about the future of the nation?”

Sowell points to Obama’s economic policies, which have taken the country down a path that has “led Western European nations to the brink of financial disaster.”

via Thomas Sowell: I’ll Take Gingrich over Romney.

November 30, 2011

Gingrich and Immigration – Thomas Sowell

When you import people, you import cultures, including cultures that have been far less successful in providing decent lives and decent livelihoods. The American people have a right to decide for themselves whether they want unlimited imports of cultures from other countries.

By Thomas Sowell

Now that Newt Gingrich has become the latest in a series of Republican front-runners, he is getting the kinds of scrutiny and attacks that have done in other front-runners.

One of the issues that have aroused concern among conservative Republicans is that of amnesty for illegal immigrants, especially after Gingrich said that it would not be “humane” to deport someone who has been living and working here for years.

Let’s go back to square one. The purpose of American immigration laws and policies is not to be either humane or inhumane to illegal immigrants. The purpose of immigration laws and policies is to serve the national interest of this country.

There is no inherent right to come live in the United States, in disregard of whether the American people want you here. Nor does the passage of time confer any such right retroactively.

The usually sober and thoughtful Wall Street Journal, on issues other than immigration, outdoes Newt Gingrich’s claim that it would not be “humane” to deport illegal immigrants who have been living here a long time. A Wall Street Journal editorial says that it would be “psychotic” to do so.

“No one honestly believes the government should or will mount a nationwide manhunt to deport millions of people,” according to the Wall Street Journal.

What we have today is virtually the opposite of that. Cities that openly proclaim themselves “sanctuaries” for illegal immigrants put their own policemen under strict orders not to report illegal immigrants to the federal authorities, with the result that illegal immigrants who have committed crime after crime are free to stay here and commit more crimes, including murder.

Read full article here:  Gingrich and Immigration – Thomas Sowell – Townhall Conservative.

%d bloggers like this: