Speaking at the Manhattan Institute yesterday, George W. Bush said that he believes in capitalism, arguing that:
"the surest path to...growth is free markets and free people."
It seems to me that President Bush is confused. Free markets and free people are by definition independent of government. Dictionary.com defines capitalism as:
"an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth."
President Bush has:
-used a government agency, the Federal Reserve Bank, to pump endless amounts of money into the economy for the past eight years causing massive distortion, over-building, over-purchasing and economic dislocation
-aimed to solve these government-induced problems, induced during his administration, by pumping even more money into the system
-caused the federal government to take a $150 billion stake in an insurance company, AIG, to help his cronies on Wall Street
-caused Congress to authorize $750 billion in bailout money to interfere with market forces
-overseen massive growth in the federal government budget
-failed to cut any government agencies or budgets of note
It seems to me that President Bush is confused. Capitalism means private ownership. The bailout his chief economic advisor, Henry Paulson, has engineered involves new breakthroughs toward public ownership.
The current instability in the economy is indeed due to big government, specifically the past 28 years of Federal Reserve policy, mostly during Republican administrations.
The Bush presidency has convinced me that northeasterners and anyone associated with a university in the northeast ought not to be allowed near the levers of power. President Bush, a graduate of the Harvard Business School, does not seem to know what capitalism means. He does not know what markets are. He is an economic illiterate. He is the symptom of an underlying problem. Progressivism, the dominant ideology in the northeast, is opposed to freedom and opposed to free markets.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
John Winthrop: The First Progressive
Most people think of John Winthrop as the first social conservative because of his "City on a Hill" speech that he gave on board the ship Arbella before landing to become the first governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1630. But an equally famous speech by Winthrop is his "Little Speech" given upon the conclusion of a trial for "arbitrary government" when he had been acquitted. Although Winthrop was arguably the first social conservative, his elitism, emphasis on imposed morality and belief that social justice ought to trump freedom and natural liberty are consistent with Progressivism as well as intermediate elitist American ideologies, to include Hamilton's Federalism and the early nineteenth cenutry Whigs of Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln. In saying that moral liberty is "maintained and exercised in a way of subjection to authority" Winthrop applies the logic of John Dewey. American elitism flows from Winthrop to Hamilton, to Clay to Dewey, to Roosevelt. Progressivism has roots in Puritanism, just as liberalism does.
In his "Little Speech" Winthrop stated:
"For the other point concerning liberty, I observe a great mistake in the country about that. There is a twofold liberty, natural (I mean as our nature is now corrupt) and civil or federal. The first is common to man with beasts and other creatures. By this, man, as he stands in relation to man simply, hath liberty to do what he lists; it is a liberty to evil as well as to good. This liberty is incompatible and inconsistent with authority, and cannot endure the least restraint of the most just authority. The exercise and maintaining of this liberty makes men grow more evil, and in time to be worse than brute beasts: omnes sumus licentia deteriores. This is that great enemy of truth and peace, that wild beast, which all of the ordinances of God are bent against, to restrain and subdue it. The other kind of liberty I call civil or federal; it may also be termed moral, in reference to the covenant between God and man, in the moral law, and the politic covenants and constitutions amongst men themselves. This liberty is the proper end and object of authority and cannot subsist without it; and it is a liberty to that only which is good, just, and honest. This liberty you are to stand for, with the hazard (not only of your goods, but) of your lives, if need be. Whatsoever crosseth this is not authority but a distemper thereof. This liberty is maintained and exercised in a way of subjection to authority; it is of the same kind of liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free. The women's own choice makes such a man her husband; yet, being so chosen, he is her lord, and she is to be subject to him, yet in a way of liberty, not of bondage; and a true wife accounts her subjection her honor and freedom and would not think her condition safe and free but in her subjection to her husband's authority. Such is the liberty of the church under the authority of Christ, her king and husband; his yoke is so easy and sweet to her as a bride's ornaments; and if through forwardness or wantonness, etc., she shake it off, at any time, she is at no rest in her spirit, until she take it up again; and whether her lord smiles upon her and embraceth her in his arms, or whether he frowns, or rebukes, or smites her, she apprehends the sweetness of his love in all, and is refreshed, supported, and instructed by every such dispensation of his authority over her. On the other side, ye know who they are that complain of this yoke and say, Let us break their bands, etc.; we will not have this man to rule over us. Even so, brethren, it will be between you and your magistrates. If you want to stand for your natural corrupt liberties, and will do what is good in your own eyes, you will not endure the least weight of authority, but will murmur, and oppose, and be always striving to shake off that yoke; but if you will be satisfied to enjoy such civil and lawful liberties, such as Christ allows you, then will you quietly and cheerfully submit unto that authority which is set over you, in all the administrations of it, for your good. Wherein, if we fail at any time, we hope we shall be willing (by God's assistance) to hearken to good advice from any of you, or in any other way of God; so shall your liberties be preserved in upholding the honor and power of authority amongst you.
In his "Little Speech" Winthrop stated:
"For the other point concerning liberty, I observe a great mistake in the country about that. There is a twofold liberty, natural (I mean as our nature is now corrupt) and civil or federal. The first is common to man with beasts and other creatures. By this, man, as he stands in relation to man simply, hath liberty to do what he lists; it is a liberty to evil as well as to good. This liberty is incompatible and inconsistent with authority, and cannot endure the least restraint of the most just authority. The exercise and maintaining of this liberty makes men grow more evil, and in time to be worse than brute beasts: omnes sumus licentia deteriores. This is that great enemy of truth and peace, that wild beast, which all of the ordinances of God are bent against, to restrain and subdue it. The other kind of liberty I call civil or federal; it may also be termed moral, in reference to the covenant between God and man, in the moral law, and the politic covenants and constitutions amongst men themselves. This liberty is the proper end and object of authority and cannot subsist without it; and it is a liberty to that only which is good, just, and honest. This liberty you are to stand for, with the hazard (not only of your goods, but) of your lives, if need be. Whatsoever crosseth this is not authority but a distemper thereof. This liberty is maintained and exercised in a way of subjection to authority; it is of the same kind of liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free. The women's own choice makes such a man her husband; yet, being so chosen, he is her lord, and she is to be subject to him, yet in a way of liberty, not of bondage; and a true wife accounts her subjection her honor and freedom and would not think her condition safe and free but in her subjection to her husband's authority. Such is the liberty of the church under the authority of Christ, her king and husband; his yoke is so easy and sweet to her as a bride's ornaments; and if through forwardness or wantonness, etc., she shake it off, at any time, she is at no rest in her spirit, until she take it up again; and whether her lord smiles upon her and embraceth her in his arms, or whether he frowns, or rebukes, or smites her, she apprehends the sweetness of his love in all, and is refreshed, supported, and instructed by every such dispensation of his authority over her. On the other side, ye know who they are that complain of this yoke and say, Let us break their bands, etc.; we will not have this man to rule over us. Even so, brethren, it will be between you and your magistrates. If you want to stand for your natural corrupt liberties, and will do what is good in your own eyes, you will not endure the least weight of authority, but will murmur, and oppose, and be always striving to shake off that yoke; but if you will be satisfied to enjoy such civil and lawful liberties, such as Christ allows you, then will you quietly and cheerfully submit unto that authority which is set over you, in all the administrations of it, for your good. Wherein, if we fail at any time, we hope we shall be willing (by God's assistance) to hearken to good advice from any of you, or in any other way of God; so shall your liberties be preserved in upholding the honor and power of authority amongst you.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Is It Time for a New Conservative Party?
In 1970, James L. Buckley, William F. Buckley's brother, was able to win a US Senate seat in New York on the Conservative Party ticket. Buckley was the last US Senator elected on a third party ticket.
The Republican Party has let people who believe in freedom down. This is true nationally and in many states, including New York. It seems to me that social conservatives and those who believe in less government (and are social liberals) comprise a majority of the vote. A moderately free market, pro-budget reduction and mildly social conservative party might be able to win 35% of the vote if packaged in a serious way. This would enable a third party to win elections against a Progressive Republican Party that is socially conservative plus in favor of big government and a progressive Democratic Party that is socially liberal but also in favor of big government and anti-freedom.
Third parties have a history of protest but not electoral success. The Republican Party was built on the remains of the early 19th century Whig Party and was not really a third party even in the beginning.
Nevertheless, the electoral system is broken. It no longer represents the mainstream American viewpoint of liberty, liberalism (in the 19th century meaning), economic dynamism and traditional Christian values. The Republicans have been good at cultural and military issues. The Democrats have been good at income redistribution and economic decline. Neither has been good at what most Americans care about: improving economic opportunity.
It may be time to seriously consider a third party that reflects the interests of freedom-loving Americans.
The Republican Party has let people who believe in freedom down. This is true nationally and in many states, including New York. It seems to me that social conservatives and those who believe in less government (and are social liberals) comprise a majority of the vote. A moderately free market, pro-budget reduction and mildly social conservative party might be able to win 35% of the vote if packaged in a serious way. This would enable a third party to win elections against a Progressive Republican Party that is socially conservative plus in favor of big government and a progressive Democratic Party that is socially liberal but also in favor of big government and anti-freedom.
Third parties have a history of protest but not electoral success. The Republican Party was built on the remains of the early 19th century Whig Party and was not really a third party even in the beginning.
Nevertheless, the electoral system is broken. It no longer represents the mainstream American viewpoint of liberty, liberalism (in the 19th century meaning), economic dynamism and traditional Christian values. The Republicans have been good at cultural and military issues. The Democrats have been good at income redistribution and economic decline. Neither has been good at what most Americans care about: improving economic opportunity.
It may be time to seriously consider a third party that reflects the interests of freedom-loving Americans.
Berg, Martin, Donofrio, Oh My!
Count Us Out summarizes the litigation and other actions surrounding Barack Obama's birth certificate (h/t Bob Robbins). Count Us Out notes that The Universal Seduction writes that Rosary films has offered one million dollars for the original vault copy of Barack Obama's birth certificate. With $650 million in campaign donations, much of it from illegal foreign contributors, what would the Obama campaign do with a paltry million?
Count us Out notes that TB Bradley, a forensic psychologist, has filed the following case:
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 16 Filed 10/07/2008 Page 1 of 71
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CASE NO. 02-08-CV-04083 PHILLIP BERG, ESQ. PLAINT1FF
V.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, JR., AKA BARRY SOETORO, CITIZEN OF INDONESIA DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL
COMMITTEE DEFENDANTS
MOTION FOR APPLICATION TO INTERVENE WITH COMPLAINT
AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTED TO THE AGENCIES OF THE UNITED STATES
AND MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1. Applicant is a Forensic Psychologist who works for the Criminal Justice System and the Courts.
2. Upon reading all of the books written by or about Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. aka Barry 50etoro, (hereinafter Obama) Applicant discerned that Obama was not a natural born citizen of the United States or if he was a natural born citizen that he had lost his citizenship when his biological mother married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia. And, Obama then became a citizen of Indonesia as a result of his mother's expatriation of herself and her son, by self declaration on legal public educational records that Obama was formally known as Barry Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia.
3. Hence, Applicant discerned that Obama was not US Constitutionally qualified to hold the Office of the United States Senator from Illinois or the Office of the President of the United States.
Read it here.
Count us Out is doing an excellent job tracking all of the litigation. It is certainly a phenomena in itself.
Count us Out notes that TB Bradley, a forensic psychologist, has filed the following case:
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 16 Filed 10/07/2008 Page 1 of 71
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CASE NO. 02-08-CV-04083 PHILLIP BERG, ESQ. PLAINT1FF
V.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, JR., AKA BARRY SOETORO, CITIZEN OF INDONESIA DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL
COMMITTEE DEFENDANTS
MOTION FOR APPLICATION TO INTERVENE WITH COMPLAINT
AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTED TO THE AGENCIES OF THE UNITED STATES
AND MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1. Applicant is a Forensic Psychologist who works for the Criminal Justice System and the Courts.
2. Upon reading all of the books written by or about Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. aka Barry 50etoro, (hereinafter Obama) Applicant discerned that Obama was not a natural born citizen of the United States or if he was a natural born citizen that he had lost his citizenship when his biological mother married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia. And, Obama then became a citizen of Indonesia as a result of his mother's expatriation of herself and her son, by self declaration on legal public educational records that Obama was formally known as Barry Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia.
3. Hence, Applicant discerned that Obama was not US Constitutionally qualified to hold the Office of the United States Senator from Illinois or the Office of the President of the United States.
Read it here.
Count us Out is doing an excellent job tracking all of the litigation. It is certainly a phenomena in itself.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
