13 posts tagged “politics”
From the descriptive point of view, the difference between the physician and the veterinarian is that the former treats human diseases or sick people, whereas the latter treats animal diseases or sick animals. From the moral and political point of view, the difference between them is that the physician is expected to be the agent of the persons who are his patients, whereas the veterinarian is expected to be the agent of persons who own sick animals. In proportion, then, as the physician becomes the agent of the State and in proportion as the State is totalitarian, the physician becomes, from a moral and political point of view, a veterinarian- that is, the agent of a State who owns its citizens, just as the farmer owns his animals. This is why killing animals is part of the normal function of the veterinarian and why incarcerating people is, and killing them may yet become, a part of the normal function of the physician employed by the Therapeutic State.
--Dr. Thomas Szasz
Climb by Mark Steyn on National Review Online
May 09, 2009, 7:00 a.m.
Climb
Conservatives must have the courage to defend their convictions.
By Mark Steyn
Is conservatism over?
Well, of course it is. Everyone from James Carville to Colin Powell
says so. “The Republican party is in deep trouble,” General Powell
told some group willing to pay him serious money to deliver this
kind of incisive insight. “Americans do want to pay taxes for
services. Americans want more government in their lives, not less.”
Whether or not they want it, they’re certainly going to get it. And
if you like big government now, just think how big it’ll be once
both parties are fully signed up to the concept. You’ll recall that
General Powell voted for Barack Obama, coming out and publicly
stiffing his “beloved friend” John McCain, after years of more
discreetly stiffing (in leaks to Bob Woodward and others) his
not-so-beloved colleagues in the Bush administration. But, in
fairness to the former secretary of state, his breezy endorsement of
more government and more taxes is as near as we’ve ever got to a
coherent political philosophy from him. If the GOP refuses to take
his advice, I would urge him to run a third-party campaign on this
refreshingly candid platform.
One of Powell’s more famous utterances was his rationale, after the
1991 Gulf War, for declining to involve the U.S. military in the
Balkans: “We do deserts, we don’t do mountains.” Actually, by that
stage, the U.S. barely did deserts. The first President Bush’s
decision, at Powell’s urging, not to topple Saddam but to halt the
coalition forces at the gates of Baghdad sent the world a message
about American purpose whose consequences we live with to this day.
As for the Kurds and Shiites to whom it never occurred that the
world’s superpower would assemble a mighty coalition for the purpose
of fighting half a war to an inconclusive conclusion, Saddam quickly
took a bloody revenge: That’s an interesting glimpse of what it’s
like to be on the receiving end of Colin Powell’s much-vaunted
“moderation.”
So I have no great regard for Powell’s strategic thinking, at home
or abroad. As the general sees it, the Republican party ought to be
a “big tent”: Right now, the tent is empty, with only a few “mean
spirited” and “divisive” talk-radio hosts chewing the limbs off live
kittens while gibbering to themselves. By comparison, over in the
Democrat tent, they’ve got blacks, gays, unions, professors, Ben
Affleck: diversity on parade.
In fact, the GOP’s tent has many poles: It has social conservatives,
libertarians, fiscal conservatives, national-security hawks. These
groups do not always agree: The so-cons resent the libertarians’
insouciance on gay marriage and abortion. The libertarians don’t get
the warhawks’ obsession with thankless nation-building in Islamist
hellholes. A lot of the hawks can’t see why the fiscal cons are so
hung up on footling matters like bloated government spending at a
time of war. It requires a lot of effort to align these various
poles sufficiently to hold up the big tent. And by the 2006
electoral cycle, between the money-no-object Congress at home and a
war that seemed to have dwindled down to an endless, half-hearted,
semi-colonial policing operation, the GOP poles were tilting badly.
The Republican coalition is like a permanent loveless marriage:
There are bad times and worse times. And, while social conservatism
and libertarianism can be principled to a fault, the vagaries of
electoral politics mean they often wind up being represented in
office by either unprincipled opportunists like Arlen Specter or
unprincipled squishes like Lincoln Chafee.
Meanwhile, over in the other tent, they celebrate diversity with
ruthless singlemindedness: In the Democrats’ parade, whatever your
bugbear, government is the answer. Government is the means,
government is the end, government is the whole magilla. That gives
them a unity of purpose the GOP can never match.
And yet and yet . . . Last November, even with the GOP’s fiscal
profligacy, even with the financial sector’s “October surprise,”
even with a cranky old coot of a nominee unable to articulate any
rationale for his candidacy or even string together a coherent
thought on the economy, even with a running mate subjected to brutal
character assassination in nothing flat, even running against a
charming, charismatic media darling of historic significance, even
facing the natural cycle of a two-party system, the washed-up loser
no-hoper side managed to get 46 percent of the vote.
Okay, it’s not 51 percent. But still: Obama’s 53 percent isn’t a big
transformative landslide just because he behaves as if it were.
To put it in Powellite terms, the general thinks the Republican
party is in the desert, when in fact it’s climbing a mountain. All
things considered, the resilience of American conservatism is one of
the most remarkable features of contemporary Western politics. It’s
up against significant members of its own party. It’s up against
media for whom the Democrats’ positions are the default positions on
almost anything that matters.
Consider this cooing profile of Secretary Powell from Todd Purdum in
the New York Times back in 2002: “Mr. Powell’s approach to almost
all issues — foreign or domestic — is pragmatic and nonideological.
He is internationalist, multilateralist and moderate. He has
supported abortion rights and affirmative action.”
So supporting “internationalism,” “multilateralism,” abortion, and
racial quotas means you’re “moderate” and “nonideological”? And
anyone who feels differently is an extreme ideologue? Absolutely.
The aim of a large swathe of the Left is not to win the debate but
to get it canceled before it starts. You can do that in any number
of ways: busting up campus appearances by conservatives, “hate
speech” prohibitions, activist judges’ more imaginative court
decisions, or merely, as the Times does, by declaring your side of
every issue to be the “moderate” and “nonideological” position —
even when, in many cases, the “extreme” position is supported by a
majority of voters. Likewise, to Colin Powell, it’s Ann Coulter
who’s “vicious,” not Michael Moore, who compares the jihadists who
blow up Western troops in Iraq to America’s Minutemen and gets
rewarded with a seat next to Jimmy Carter in the presidential box at
the Democratic convention.
It’s a mountain, and it’s getting steeper. Promises of “free”
government health care will make more voters susceptible to the
blandishments of the nanny state. The Democrats have plans for talk
radio and the Internet that will diminish conservative voices.
Another retirement on the Supreme Court, and the First and Second
Amendments will start getting nibbled away. Obama’s buddies at
ACORN, already under investigation in multiple states over
fraudulent voter registration, will have a prominent say in the 2010
census.
But, when the going gets tough, you don’t, as General Powell
advises, “move toward the center.” You move the center toward you,
as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher did. It’s harder to do it
that way, but if it’s a choice between more government and more
taxes, or more liberty and more opportunity, I’ll stick with the
latter, and so should the Republican party — however difficult it
is. Unlike Colin Powell, conservatism does do mountains.
— Mark Steyn, a National Review columnist, is author of America
Alone. © 2009 Mark Steyn
National Review Online -
National Review Online
You Cannot Get Even
By Hans F. Sennholz
Dr. Sennholz heads the Department of Economics at Grove City College and is a
noted writer and lecturer on monetary and economic affairs.
Government affects individual incomes by virtually every decision it makes.
Agricultural programs, veterans' benefits, health and labor and welfare
expenditures, housing and community development, federal expenditures on
education, social insurance, medicare and medicaid programs, and last but not
least, numerous regulations and controls affect the economic conditions of every
citizen. In fact, modern government has become a universal transfer agency that
utilizes the political process for distributing vast measures of economic income
and wealth. It preys on millions of victims in order to allocate valuable goods
and services to its beneficiaries. With the latter, transfer programs are so
popular that few public officials and politicians dare oppose them.
The motive powers that drive the transfer order are as varied as human design
itself. Surely, the true motives are often concealed, and a hollow pretext is
pompously placed in the front for show. And yet, man is more accountable for his
motives than for anything else. A good motive may exculpate a poor action, but a
bad motive vitiates even the finest action. Conscience is merely our own
judgment of the right and wrong of our action, and therefore can never be a safe
guide unless it is enlightened by a thorough understanding of the implications
and consequences of our actions. Without an enlightened conscience we may do
evil thoroughly and heartily.
An important spring of action for the transfer society is the desire by most
people to get even in the redistribution struggle. "I have been victimized in
the past by taxation, inflation, regulation, or other devices," so the
argument goes, "therefore I am entitled to partake in this particular benefit."
Or the time sequence may be reversed: "I'll be victimized later in life,"
pleads the college student, "and therefore I want state aid and subsidy now."
This argument is probably the most powerful pacifier of conscience. It dulls our
perception and discernment of what is evil and makes us slow to shun it. After
all, we are merely getting back "what is rightfully our own." With a curious
twist of specious deduction the modern welfare state, which continually seizes
and redistributes private property by force, is defended by the friends of
individual liberty and private property. "Man is entitled to the fruits of his
labor," they argue, "we are merely getting back that which is rightfully and
morally our own." They borrow the arguments for the private property order to
sustain the political transfer order.
Surely getting back that which is rightfully and morally our own is a principle
that is rooted in our inalienable right to our lives. It is a property right
that springs from our human rights and from the right to life itself. It is the
right to restoration of the fruits of our efforts and labors of which we are
deprived by deceit, force, or any other immoral practice. It is a specific right
to recovery or compensation from those who are wronging us or have injured us
in the past.
This right to restoration does not beget the right to commit the very immoral
act from which we seek restoration, to imitate others in acting immorally, or
to seek revenge against the trespassers or innocent bystanders. But this is
precisely what the "get-even" advisors urge us to do.
In an unfortunate automobile accident we are hurt or injured, or our vehicle
may be damaged, because of the negligence of another driver. This gives us the
right to demand restoration and compensation from the guilty party. But it does
not give us the right to seize another car parked in the neighborhood, or
return to the road and injure another driver. Or, our home is burglarized and
we suffer deplorable losses in personal wealth and memorabilia. This does not
bestow upon us the right to do likewise to others. But the "get-even" advocates
are drawing this very conclusion.
He who is desirous of "getting even" in the politics of redistribution longs to
join the army of beneficiaries who are presently preying on their victims. They
would like to get their "money back" from whomever they can find and victimize
now.
Like the victim of a burglary who becomes a burglar himself, they are searching
for other victims. But in contrast to the new burglar who may be aware of the
immorality of his actions, the "get-even" advocate openly defends his motives
while he is pursuing his political craft.
We cannot get even with those individuals who deprived us of our property in the
past. They may have long departed this life or may have fallen among the victims
themselves. We cannot get even with them by enlisting in the standing army of
redistributors. We merely perpetuate the evil by joining their forces. So we
must stand immune to the temptations of evil, regardless of what others are
doing to us. The redistribution must stop with us.
The redistributive society has victimized many millions of people through
confiscatory taxation, inflation, and regulation. Government, acting as the
political agency for coercive transfer, seized income and wealth from the more
productive members and then redistributed the spoils to its beneficiaries.
Although many millions of victims and beneficiaries were involved, which often
obscures the morality of the issue, the forced transfer took place between
certain individuals. It is true, the beneficiaries, who used political force to
obtain the benefits, cannot easily be recognized in the mass process of
transfer. But even if we could identify them, and establish a personal right to
restoration, our property has been consumed long ago. A vast army of
beneficiaries, together with their legions of government officials and civil
servants, consumed or otherwise squandered our substance. There is nothing to
retrieve from the beneficiaries who probably are poorer than ever before,
having grown weak and dependent on the transfer process.
When seen in this light, the get-even argument is nothing more than a
declaration of intention to join the redistribution forces. It may be born from
the primitive urge for revenge against government, state or society. But it is
individuals who form a government, make a state and constitute a society. By
taking revenge against some of them for the injuries suffered from the hands of
others, I am merely reinforcing the evil.
Revenge is a common passion that enslaves man's mind and clouds his vision. To
the savage it is a noble aspiration that makes him even with his enemies. In a
civilized society that is seeking peace and harmony it is a destructive force
which law seeks to suppress. But when the law itself becomes an instrument of
transfer, the primitive urge for revenge may burst forth as a demand for more
redistribution. It becomes a primary force that gives rise to new demands or, at
least, reinforces the popular demands for economic transfer. The common passion
for revenge, no matter how well concealed, undoubtedly is an important motive
power of social policy that leads a free society to its own destruction.
No wealth in the world and no political distribution of this wealth can purchase
the peace and harmony so essential to human existence. Peace and harmony can
be found only in moral elevation that reaches into every aspect of human life. A
free society is the offspring of morality that guides the actions and policies
of its members. To effect a rebirth of such a society is to revive the moral
principles that gave it birth in the beginning. It is individual rebirth and
rededication to the inexorable principles of morality that are the power and the
might. The example of great individuals is useful to lead us on the way, for
nothing is more contagious for greatness than the power of a great example.
To spearhead a rebirth of our free society let us rededicate ourselves to a new
covenant of redemption, which is a simple restatement of public morality. In the
setting of our age of economic redistribution and social conflict it may be
stated as follows:
No matter how the transfer state may victimize me, I shall seek no transfer
payments, or accept any.
I shall seek no government grants, loans or other redistributive favors, or
accept any.
I shall seek no government orders on behalf of redistribution, or accept any.
I shall seek no employment, or accept any, in the government apparatus of
redistribution.
I shall seek no favors, or accept any, from the regulatory agencies of
government.
I shall seek no protection from tariff barriers or any other institutional
restrictions of trade and commerce.
I shall seek no services from, or lend support to collective institutions that
are creatures of redistribution.
I shall seek no support from, or give support to associations that advocate or
practice coercion and restraint.
We do not know whether our great republic will survive this century. If it can
be saved, great men of conviction must lead the way—men who with religious
fervor and unbounded courage resist all transfer temptations. The heroes of
liberty are no less remarkable for what they suffer than for what they achieve.
You Cannot Get Even| The Foundation for Economic Education: The Freeman, Ideas on Liberty
Foundation for Economic Education
30 South Broadway
Irvington-on-Hudson,
New York, 10533
1-800-960-4FEE •
The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty - June 1978
Vol. 28 No. 6
©2007 Foundation for Economic Education. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=6015
I was raised in one country but my father was born in another. I was not his only child. He fathered several children with a number of women.
I became very close to my mother because my father showed little interest in me. Then my mother died at an early age from cancer. Later in life, questions arose over my real name. My birth records were sketchy and no one was able to produce a reliable birth certificate.
I grew up practicing one faith, but converted to Christianity because this was widely accepted in my country. But I practiced non-traditional beliefs and did not follow mainstream Christianity.
I worked and lived among lower-class people as a young adult before I decided it was time to get serious about my life and I embarked on a new career.
I wrote a book about my struggles growing up. It was clear to those who read my memoirs that I had difficulties accepting that my father abandoned me as a child.
I became active in local politics when I was in my 30s and then burst onto the scene as a candidate for national office when I was in my 40s. I had a virtually non-existent resume, very little work history, and no experience in leading a single organization. Yet I was a powerful speaker who managed to draw incredibly large crowds during my public appearances.
At first, my political campaign focused on my country's foreign policy. I was critical of my country in the last war. But what launched my rise to national prominence were my views on the country's economy. I had a plan on how we could do better. I knew which group was responsible for getting us into this mess.
Mine was a people's campaign. I was the surprise candidate because I emerged from outside the traditional path of politics and was able to gain widespread popular support. I offered the people the hope that together we could change our country and the world.
I spoke on behalf of the downtrodden including persecuted minorities such as Jews, but my actual views were not widely known until after I became my nations leader. However, anyone could have easily learned what I really believed if they had simply read my writings and examined those people I associated with. But they did not.
Then I became the most powerful man in the world. And the world learned the truth.
Who am I?
DO YOU THINK YOU GUESSED?......
CAN YOU BELIEVE .....
Adolph Hitler
and heaven forbid that there is No Other???
“Lyndon Johnson is directly responsible for the deaths of 58,000 Americans, but Nixon is vilified for covering up a break-in. Carter nearly bankrupted the country and his incompetence in the hostage crisis was stunning, yet Reagan brought down the Soviet Union, but he is ridiculed for being out of touch. Clinton brought sleaze and criminality to the Oval Office and stood idly bye while terrorists attacked the World Trade Center, the USS Cole, Kobart Towers in Saudi Arabia, our embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Kenya which paved the way to 9/11, but Bush is hated for declaring war on terrorism because he didn’t fight it the way the liberals wanted.”
--Ted West TedWest The Naked Conservative
Ego and mouth
By Thomas Sowell
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | After the big gamble on subprime
mortgages that led to the current financial crisis, is there going to be
an even bigger gamble, by putting the fate of a nation in the hands of a
man whose only qualifications are ego and mouth?
Barack Obama has the kind of cocksure confidence that can only be achieved
by not achieving anything else.
Anyone who has actually had to take responsibility for consequences by
running any kind of enterprise — whether economic or academic, or even
just managing a sports team — is likely at some point to be chastened by
either the setbacks brought on by his own mistakes or by seeing his
successes followed by negative consequences that he never anticipated.
The kind of self-righteous self-confidence that has become Obama's
trademark is usually found in sophomores in Ivy League colleges — very
bright and articulate students, utterly untempered by experience in real
world.
The signs of Barack Obama's self-centered immaturity are painfully
obvious, though ignored by true believers who have poured their hopes into
him, and by the media who just want the symbolism and the ideology that
Obama represents.
The triumphal tour of world capitals and photo-op meetings with world
leaders by someone who, after all, was still merely a candidate, is just
one sign of this self-centered immaturity.
"This is our time!" he proclaimed. And "I will change the world." But
ultimately this election is not about him, but about the fate of this
nation, at a time of both domestic and international peril, with a major
financial crisis still unresolved and a nuclear Iran looming on the
horizon.
For someone who has actually accomplished nothing to blithely talk about
taking away what has been earned by those who have accomplished something,
and give it to whomever he chooses in the name of "spreading the wealth,"
is the kind of casual arrogance that has led to many economic catastrophes
in many countries.
The equally casual ease with which Barack Obama has talked about
appointing judges on the basis of their empathies with various segments of
the population makes a mockery of the very concept of law.
After this man has wrecked the economy and destroyed constitutional law
with his judicial appointments, what can he do for an encore? He can
cripple the military and gamble America's future on his ability to sit
down with enemy nations and talk them out of causing trouble.
Senator Obama's running mate, Senator Joe Biden, has for years shown the
same easy-way-out mindset. Senator Biden has for decades opposed
strengthening our military forces. In 1991, Biden urged relying on
sanctions to get Saddam Hussein's troops out of Kuwait, instead of
military force, despite the demonstrated futility of sanctions as a means
of undoing an invasion.
People who think Governor Sarah Palin didn't handle some "gotcha"
questions well in a couple of interviews show no interest in how she
compares to the Democrats' Vice Presidential candidate, Senator Biden.
Joe Biden is much more of the kind of politician the mainstream media
like. Not only is he a liberal's liberal, he answers questions far more
glibly than Governor Palin — grossly inaccurately in many cases, but
glibly.
Moreover, this is a long-standing pattern with Biden. When he was running
for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination back in 1987, someone
in the audience asked him what law school he attended and how well he did.
Flashing his special phony smile, Biden said, "I think I have a much
higher IQ than you do." He added, "I went to law school on a full academic
scholarship" and "ended up in the top half" of the class.
But Biden did not have a full academic scholarship. Newsweek reported: "He
went on a half scholarship based on need. He didn't finish in the 'top
half' of his class. He was 76th out of 85."
Add to Obama and Biden House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid, and you have all the ingredients for a historic
meltdown. Let us not forget that the Roman Empire did decline and fall,
blighting the lives of millions for centuries.
© 2006, Creators Syndicate
"I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle." –Winston Churchill
In light of the wholesale voter registration fraud perpetrated by ACORN and others it is clear to me that we need to reform our voter registration laws.
- Require eligible voters to appear in person to a sworn deputy registrar.
- Require identification proving that one is the person that one is representing.
- Require proof that one is qualified to vote
- Always require identification at the polling location before given a ballot.
- Prohibit same day registration and voting.
- Require a notarized signature on all ballots submitted through the mail.
Outside of his politics, Tim Russert really was a great guy. From a Toastmaster's perspective where evaluations are on the presentation rather then the viewpoint Russert was a master that we all can learn from. Regrettably I didn't get a Dad like Tim Russert. I would like to see someone like Dr. Thomas Sowell replace him on Meet the Press, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
My Groups
-
Voxaholic Updated: 1 hour ago
-
Photography Updated: 1 hour ago
-
Conservative Politics Updated: 2 hours ago
Neighborhood
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.
