머니투데이 [단독]"中이 잘해줄 것이란 기대는 환상...삼성 볼모로 잡혀" 왕윤종 "中 때문에 우리 반도체 산업 입지 더 이상 설 땅 없어질 것...우리 기업들 환상 버려야" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 헤럴드경제 말 많던 선관위, 인수위 간담회 거부…尹측 “감사원 감사 받아야” 尹측 선관위에 유감 표명 "감사원, 사전투표 부실관리 등 선관위 감사계획 보고" 법무부 업무보고, 29일 오후 2시 진행 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 김정숙 옷은 피아제시계 시즌2이다.fact 빅센터 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11404682540 권양숙이 받은 피아제 시계가 노무현을 부엉이 바위로 내몰았듯이 김정숙의 옷, 신발 그리고 악세서리가 문재앙을 나락으로 보낼 거다. 친구따라 잘가라 재앙아. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 김정숙이가 저지른 국정농단의 예 2가지 디오미드 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11404665119 UN 총회의 bts옆에 김정숙이가 턱을 괴고 읹아있는 저 자리는 원래 UN의 초청을 받아 14시간 비행기를 타고 온 한국인 최초의 국제사법재판소장을 역임했고, 지금은 한국 유니페프 이사회 회장인 세계적인 법학자 송상현씨가 앉아야 하는 자리인데, 김정숙이가 BTS를 보고 싶다고 하는 바람에 주변에서 무언의 압력이 들어 갔고 결국 이를 감지한 송상현씨는 자리를 양보하고 회의장에도 들어가지 못했다고 한다. 이는 국가적인 행사에 영부인인 부당한 압력을 행사한 국정농단의 분명한 예다. 사진에서 보듯이 대통령 휘장까지 붙이고 공군1호기를 대통령도 아닌 영부인이 사용했는데. 청외대는 인도의 초청 때문에 어쩔 수 없었다고 입장을 발표 했었다. 그런데 사실을 알고보니 인도 정부에서는 외무부장관인 강경화를 초청한 것인데 느닷없이 김정숙이가 끼어 들었다는 것은, 이 사실을 보도했던 기자를 청와대가 고소를 했고 재판을 통하여 청와대가 발표한 인도 모디 총리의 공식 초청은 사실이 아닌 것으로 밝혀 졌다. 코메디는 남의 나라 축제(디왈리 축제)에 가서 연설 내용이 촛불정신 어떻고, 어둠은 빛을 이길 수없다는 황당한 내용이었다는 것이다. 여기서 문제가 되는 것은 인도정부에서 외무부장관을 초청했는데 이무런 관련이 없는 영부인이 외국 정부에 초청을 의뢰(한국 대통령 부인이 오겠다는데 인도 정부가 거절할 수가 있느냐)하여 전용기 사용과 축제에 참가하기 위해 같이 간 일행들(보좌진 경호원 등등)의 경비를 온전히 국민 세금으로 지불했다는 점이다. 위내용은 이책에 나온 것으로 기타 김정숙이가 국민들 세금으로 대통령 놀이, 투어리스트 짓거리를 했던 것들이 소상하게 실려 있다. 윤석열이가 취임하면 진짜 김정숙이의 국정농단을 조사해야 한다. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 대전일보 김정숙 여사 확인된 '의상 178점, 소품 207점' 靑 공개 거부에, 뿔난 네티즌 증거 찾기 나섰다. 민주당, 지난 2016년 박근혜 옷값 관련 "서민들은 만원 쓰는데도 고민" 직격 신평, 네티즌 수사대에 "대단한 집념으로 저들의 위선을 밝혀냈다" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 뉴시스 '김정숙 여사 옷값' 靑 공개 거부에…네티즌 직접 '계산' 나섰다 kji1**** 역대 대통령 부인중 가장화려하고 사치스럽고 모든 악행을 보여주는 김정숙이 입고나대던 옷만 최소 600억이라니 기가찰 노릇이가 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 정숙씨 옷값 치장비용 27조! 3150억원! 팬데또패 https://youtu.be/oIyHZCEGKBo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 괴물이 된 선관위, 경고장 받다 / 정교모, 6.1지방선거에 지켜야할 사항 제시 / 그냥 법대로 하면 된다 / 어떻게 공직자들인 선관위가 법을 지키지 않는가! [공병호TV] https://youtu.be/poyoLMaOVHQ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 재업 - [청와대 비밀] = 북한의 앞마당빨갱이없애자 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11404635834 [청와대] 도청장치포함 이미 북한의 앞마당 청와대의 보안은 중요하다. 그러나 한국의 청와대에 관한 모든 정보는 지난 좌파정권 5년동안 이미 북한에 넘어간 것으로 알려져 있다. 도청장치는 이미 청와대 구석구석 숨겨져 있어서 북한이 감시하고 있다. 청와대 숨소리까지 북한에서 도청하고 있다. 주사파 빨갱이 정권(문재앙/임종석등 간첩들)의 소행 About Blue House in Korea 출처: https://irvinejournal.com/News/4951 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 文 5년 평화 망상이 김정은 ‘괴물 ICBM’ 길 닦아줬다 문화일보 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 중앙선관위를 점령한 민주노총 ~~ 박카스맨 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11404642184 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 멍청이들이 움직이는 정부 민주제를 꾸미는 갖갖 미사여구가 있지만, 결국은 비대한 관료조직, 정당하지 못한 정책들, 자원의 낭비가 일어난다. 민주제의 기이한 현상은 어떻게 해서인지 악당들이 항상 정상에 오른다는 것이다. 하이에크는 일찍이 <노예에의 길>에서 전체주의적 사회에서는 무모하고 거리낌 없는 인간들이 성공한다고 지적했다. 과거 거대 정부가 들어서기 전에는 정권을 잡은 악당들이 커다란 피해를 끼치지 못하도록 하는 장치들이 있었다. 즉 작은 정부와 권력의 감시와 제한 그리고 금본위제도 등이었다. 자유무역, 금 본위제도, 재정의 균형 등은 1차대전이 일어나기 전까지 정치인들의 장난을 막는 장치들이었다. 하지만 케인스는 금본위제도를 야만적인 유산이라며 폐기해버렸다. 금 본위가 깨지자 전시 기간 중에 정부와 지식인들은 경제와 사회를 계획하기 시작했다. 전쟁 통에 자유는 사라지고 이후로 다시 복귀할 수 없었고, 민주제와 국가들 그리고 국민들은 어두운 터널 속을 행진해야 했다. Government, the Centralizing Mindset, and the Idiots in Charge Joakim Book “Buy into a business that’s doing so well an idiot could run it, because sooner or later, one will.” —Warren Buffet The curious thing about democracy is that somehow the worst get on top. Despite all the high-flying words, the mass campaigns, the public debates, the mass pilgrimage to the voting booths, and the many promises about greener, fairer, better, more just worlds, we somehow end up with bloated bureaucracies, unjust policies, squandering of resources—and not so seldom in mass graves. The state, Robert Higgs taught us, is simply too dangerous to tolerate. In Friedrich Hayek’s The Road To Serfdom, published this month seventy-eight years ago, we find that there are strong reasons for believing that what to us appear the worst features of the existing totalitarian systems are not accidental byproducts, but phenomena which totalitarianism is certain sooner or later to produce. Just as the democratic statesman who sets out to plan economic life will soon be confronted with the alternative of either assuming dictatorial powers or abandoning his plans, so the totalitarian dictator would soon have to choose between disregard of ordinary morals and failure. It is for this reason that the unscrupulous and uninhibited are likely to be more successful in a society tending towards totalitarianism. But when the chattering classes look at government, this isn’t what they see. Instead, they see a representation of the people, a force for good, an institution made for, by, and of the people, committed to their betterment. “Planners,” commented an entry in Investor’s Business Daily in 1999 reflecting on Hayek’s masterpiece, “always assume that such power would only be wielded by the wisest and kindest of people”: No one wanted to hear some cranky Austrian exile telling them that the benevolent statism they so loved was little different from the Nazism they’d worked so hard to defeat. Before Western civilization fell prey to the siren calls of big government, there used to be safeguards in place to prevent any temporary ruler from causing too much damage. With a small government, heavily restricted in the domains within which it could operate and with sound money limiting it from venturing too far from its financial obligations, there was only so much harm that even a buffoon could cause. A small government that’s radically constricted in what it may do or opine on isn’t primarily a call for letting ruthless capitalists run free. It’s to protect against the inevitable idiot that will one day run the operations of government: The problem with (vast) government power is that eventually some distasteful person will turn those powers on you—by which time it’s too late for you to regret ever supporting the expansion of its influence. In his recent political economy history of Britain, Two Hundred Years of Muddling Through, Duncan Weldon of The Economist labels this the “knave-proof” conditions. While Warren Buffet’s iconic quote dealt with companies, Weldon applies the concept to countries instead—but the argument still holds. Of course, the centralizing mindset to which Weldon and his fellow writers at The Economist subscribe frequently laments safeguards against government power; if there’s no ability to control or steer the economy, no ability to stimulate it or regulate it, there is little scope for the intellectual classes to usher in reforms, to improve this or change that. A century plus of socialist dreams and universal suffrage has convinced every knave that were only he in charge, he’d govern the ungovernable much better than the last knave. Weldon certainly intended his phrasing to be somewhat ridiculing (but of course, my dear Watson, we must have big government doing big-government things!), but it reveals only the bias under which he intellectually operates: a restricted government is bad because it prevents the learned classes from rummaging around, drunken with their own excellence, fixing this or that ill. Thus, a few chapters later we get the deplorable ingredients of this knave-proof political economy: Free trade, the gold standard and the balanced budget were the building blocks of the pre-war knave-proof system. Politicians could not attempt to game the economy for political advantage but nor could they seek to manage it. And therein lies the problem of all political conflicts: an activist government, democratic or not, wishes to improve upon the outcomes of the private sector and civil society. Obstacles like gold standards, constitutions, and government budgets must go. A government constricted from its megalomaniacal and controlling impulses cannot do the things its proponents dream of. This is why modern economists—and British economic historians in particular—don’t grasp the events of the 1920s. They cannot conceive of a political economic outcome that does not involve government activism, controlling and regulating that which is bad, and supporting and improving on that which is good. That is why the return to gold in the 1920s is waved away as an internal contradiction of a faulty doctrine—John Maynard Keynes famously called it “a barbarous relic.” The new conditions of a new and improved government could not coexist with a hard money. During the Great War, governments and the intellectuals that adore them had a taste of planning economies and societies from on high. The taste stuck, and infatuated by their newfound powers, the elites were never going to relent. The Great War, or World War I, as our times end up calling it, changed everything. Weldon again: After the war, the rules of the “knave-proof” system had been torn asunder. The state had intervened left, right and centre across the economy, it was indeed running entire industries. The notion of a balanced budget had vanished. Even the gold standard had been suspended. The Rubicon had been crossed on free trade and laissez-faire looked to be dead…. Britain’s economic model was transformed by the Great War; the state took a large step forward and never went all the way back. Freedom dies not in darkness but in war. Once it is trashed, there is no way back, and nations, democracies, and people are left to “muddle through” until the end of times. Robert Higgs was on to something. Had those who called for enlarged governments in recent decades even once reflected on their own guilt in this madness, many modern issues currently on their consciences would be much smaller annoyances: social security, the warmongers in the military-industrial complex, corruption, emergent universal basic income, inflation, government deficits, and debts. But government is big, all-encompassing, and fighting for its control is so, so important. What Weldon’s book reminds us of is of a time when economics and fiscal policy weren’t central issues of political contention. In the 1920s, the radical wing of the Liberal party sat with the Conservatives because of their geopolitical views on Ireland. “Yes, and?” asks the modern policy wonk and wonders when we get to tax rates, stimulus bills, and environmental regulations. With nothing but knaves in government as far as the eye can see, we once again need knave-proof ruling such that whichever idiot runs it, the damages done are well contained. Because sooner or later, idiots will run the show. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------