It appears there are some betrayals of principle that republican conservatives seem to be less upset about than others. Ironically in some instances a horrible betrayal that has an immediate effect is often accepted as par for the course, yet certain populist attitudes, even if there is slight chance that that attitude it will manifest itself in sudden or major a change of policy, is grounds for immediate excommunication.
OK, I guess I'm sort of talking about Pat Buchanan. Pat Buchanan ironically would consider himself to the right of what currently passes for conservative orthodoxy (CO) on the issues of free-trade and foreign involvement. The gatekeepers of CO on the other hand have labeled these positions "populist." Buchanan agrees that it is popular, but makes a convincing case that it conserves the vision of the Founding Fathers.
It is a bit of a stretch to say that just because a thing is popular it is necessarily bad or that a politician who runs on these issues is necessarily low. In the case of the two above mentioned issues it is quite disingenuous and it hurts the party After all, it would be nice to win more elections and it is tiresome to lose elections based on betrayals of fiscal conservatism. Add to that the consideration that usually a politician has only sold out on the fiscal issues after wetting his appetite on the moral issues. To quote Ivanhoe "ruined on all sides, ruined on all sides!"
Fiscal purity is nonexistent because of the current state we have reached where representatives are expected to "bring home the bacon" or rather get as much of the pork barrel spending directed to their home state as possible. Newspapers openly tout politicians pork barrel spending directed homeward as a reason to send them back to Washington. The only way a politician can claim fiscal conservatism is to point to efforts they have made to keep the over-all budget down while directing their share of the booty toward more worthy projects.
Fiscally conservative is relative to the other pigs on the sow, so moderate is but a small step away, and it helps with re-election. One can even wrinkle ones brow or shed a tear if one needs to bolster ones reputation for fiscal continence without actually holding back. So I suppose it is understandable that folks have a hard time trying to hold a specific malefactor to account for stepping over a line that nobody has drawn or even talked about drawing. It is alarming enough that this issue has taken such a hit because of lack of definition so it is natural to attack on issues that can be defined.
This is why I would suggest that anyone who is against free-trade not say so directly, but instead talk about holding other countries to account for unfair practices. This will save American industry (and American jobs, be popular, and nobody can accuse you of being a populist. Trust me, if you can't end free-trade just by cracking down on all the countries that are cheating us then you probably aren't sharp enough to play in the big leagues anyway. Just make sure you don't hurt the interests of a certain lobby (for a country that relies on free-trade) and you can probably do whatever you want as long as you pronounce it properly.
Next it is a prudent approach to have a strong defense, it is necessary to have a sufficient defense. I would propose that a way to strike a middle ground on those two acceptable positions would be to be for more Special Forces (very popular) air power, and a smaller highly trained Army and Navy backed by a larger reserve and national guard. Without mentioning any names don't get on the wrong side of the you-know-who and you will have accomplished the nice trick of having kept that lobby in the fold without being an unpopular endless war party. They don't have anywhere else to go anyway, but they can be spoilers.
So yes there can be a party of principle that is popular enough to win most every election. I am not sure that party is the GOP, but it could be with a slight realignment of emphasis. We need to change the perception of what are acceptable betrayals and what conservative orthodoxy consists of in the first place. The founders protectionist principles secured a middle class, there is no reason it shouldn't get their votes now. I should add corporate welfare,but that needs another entry to do it justice.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Is Free Trade a Conservative value?
To a certain extent conservative is a relative term; is can be defined in relation to liberal, but liberal is always going further to the left. This creates a situation in which a liberal, if he holds the same the exact same political views for enough decades might find himself to first be a moderate and then possibly might begin to style himself a conservative.
In another sense it could be said that Americans have a North star that constantly points the way. By using the Founding Fathers as a set standard to define what it is we want to conserve we can declare what is or is not conservative without reference to how far liberals have moved their sideline.
The Founders are the only well defined standard that Americans can look too; the 1950's are not a standard because that was an era, not a group of people or an ideology. Also the founders spanned a couple of generations, the 1950's was a decade. We must also consider that the 50's, and the culture and developments of the 50's must bare some responsibility for the 60's and the 70's.
On the other hand we can't do everything the same way the founders did because among other things the "West" was declared settled in 1890. The availability of unsettled free land available for homesteading in the West made for a different set of circumstances than exist now. To maintain the same dynamic, that of being a nation of sturdy smallholders, a few customs would be needed to conserve this historically rare bird.
Make no mistake, our country was never a collection of rugged individuals. It was a country of united, but mostly self-ruling states, and the states consisted of mostly self-ruling-counties. As to the counties self-ruling, very little ruling was necessary as the counties were composed of self-disciplined God fearing families. Even the head of a family, though he may be rugged, is hardly a rugged individual.
The whole family pulled together to make the farm or small shop work. Though things had improved from the time of the Pilgrims when the men might say "I like my women big, strong, and ready to work", none-the-less the men weren't doing this alone. Children were welcomed as needed help and even young children had small duties and responsibilities. The old-folks as well filled a role and this role was necessary and respected.
Because Americans made many things for themselves they didn't rely on imports, in fact the federal government relied on tariffs for much of its' income and people preferred this less intrusive form of tax-collection. Another benefit of reasonable tariffs is that it helps maintain local manufacturing even in the face of dumping and currency manipulation. This is a net positive for national security as well as economic security and without economic security there is no national security.
Free-trade was not a part of the founders vision; the founders and the following generations set tariffs. They also steered clear of "foreign entanglements" and I can't help but think that because Americans were not heavily invested in so many countries through trade we were able to mostly stay out of their wars as well.
International wars follow international trade for the simple reason that international trade is almost a type of soft warfare between nations; there is no such thing as friendly competition only winners and losers. To prevent trade-wars we have to set up international governing bodies to settle disputes and to do that they must have authority over the national governments. So we see that international trade ends with international government. I don't think anyone can call that conservative.
In another sense it could be said that Americans have a North star that constantly points the way. By using the Founding Fathers as a set standard to define what it is we want to conserve we can declare what is or is not conservative without reference to how far liberals have moved their sideline.
The Founders are the only well defined standard that Americans can look too; the 1950's are not a standard because that was an era, not a group of people or an ideology. Also the founders spanned a couple of generations, the 1950's was a decade. We must also consider that the 50's, and the culture and developments of the 50's must bare some responsibility for the 60's and the 70's.
On the other hand we can't do everything the same way the founders did because among other things the "West" was declared settled in 1890. The availability of unsettled free land available for homesteading in the West made for a different set of circumstances than exist now. To maintain the same dynamic, that of being a nation of sturdy smallholders, a few customs would be needed to conserve this historically rare bird.
Make no mistake, our country was never a collection of rugged individuals. It was a country of united, but mostly self-ruling states, and the states consisted of mostly self-ruling-counties. As to the counties self-ruling, very little ruling was necessary as the counties were composed of self-disciplined God fearing families. Even the head of a family, though he may be rugged, is hardly a rugged individual.
The whole family pulled together to make the farm or small shop work. Though things had improved from the time of the Pilgrims when the men might say "I like my women big, strong, and ready to work", none-the-less the men weren't doing this alone. Children were welcomed as needed help and even young children had small duties and responsibilities. The old-folks as well filled a role and this role was necessary and respected.
Because Americans made many things for themselves they didn't rely on imports, in fact the federal government relied on tariffs for much of its' income and people preferred this less intrusive form of tax-collection. Another benefit of reasonable tariffs is that it helps maintain local manufacturing even in the face of dumping and currency manipulation. This is a net positive for national security as well as economic security and without economic security there is no national security.
Free-trade was not a part of the founders vision; the founders and the following generations set tariffs. They also steered clear of "foreign entanglements" and I can't help but think that because Americans were not heavily invested in so many countries through trade we were able to mostly stay out of their wars as well.
International wars follow international trade for the simple reason that international trade is almost a type of soft warfare between nations; there is no such thing as friendly competition only winners and losers. To prevent trade-wars we have to set up international governing bodies to settle disputes and to do that they must have authority over the national governments. So we see that international trade ends with international government. I don't think anyone can call that conservative.
Monday, November 2, 2009
GOP's appeal to moderates
By definition a moderate is supposed to be a reasonable creature who avoids the extremes that persons of a more passionate or less balanced mentality might go to.The moderate, we are told, votes for the man who shares his calm, balanced view. In reality, the self-identified moderate probably is a person who votes according to mood rather than principle.
This is why the idea of appealing to moderates by loosening one's principles doesn't make one more attractive. Most of the so-called moderates never look at a politician's ratings or voting record, but rather rely completely on the Main Stream Media for their information (actually for their take masquerading as information.)
The MSM doesn't provide information so much as shading and puffing, terms for misinformation that is just short of a lie. I should add that the MSM isn't above a lie if they can make it look plausible or accidental-like. Also the term moderate is hard to pin down so it can easily be redefined at will by anyone with enough chutzpah to move the definition of the related extreme, be it to the left or the right. In other words, it is not a self-defined term.
This is why a republican candidate, short of being to the left of their democrat opponent, can rarely get credit for being a moderate, so the moderates, even if we believed that they exist as portrayed in common imagination, don't even know the republican candidate reflects their values.
So the republican who has sold out on principle doesn't get the support of the rarely photographed, informed and committed moderate. Also he can't attract the unaffiliated voters with appeals to his upstanding character, the rightness of his principles (which he doesn't have) or his colorful or memorable comments in defense of those principles (which he has never made).
In a word such a candidate is objectively boring, somewhat contemptible as a sell-out who is willing to sink to any level to pander for votes, and he stands to lose votes from conservatives which makes him less electable! In the mean time the press will prop up the Democrat and attack The Maverick as always. Good luck with that!
We may not like the Democrat/Republican stranglehold of the pendulum , but short of a miracle it is what we are stuck with. Because we rely mostly on conservative Republicans to fight for traditional values and the traditional freedoms such as the right to practice our religion and the right to bear arms, the election of a moderate republican means these issues are losing ground.
While we look with hope at the new crop of conservative democrats, that is all it is - hope, there is not much of a track record, and in some cases to the extent that some of them have shown themselves (Bob Casey Jr.) they are liberal as a dog's hind leg. While a Christian may or may not be a conservative republican in good conscience he can not in good conscience be a liberal on the life or marriage issues.
Add to that the concept of subsidiarity which has been so fleshed out in authentic Catholic social teaching that it is hardly in the realm of prudential judgement. Besides Rerum Novarum, Pope Benedict himself has recently written against so-called liberation theology. It is well settled that socialism and Christianity are fundamentally opposed; the socialists have recognized this for years and have been trying to destroy Christianity (which is why they attack the family.)
While one could say that the republicans preach laissez-faire capitalism, they certainly don't make law that way. In fact most new laws by definition are hands-on! It would be easy to realign them away from the big business/socialist/capitalist mix and start to take on a small business/widely disbursed ownership type of capitalism. After all what they are doing now has failed; only a new idea can beat the old socialism.
This is why the idea of appealing to moderates by loosening one's principles doesn't make one more attractive. Most of the so-called moderates never look at a politician's ratings or voting record, but rather rely completely on the Main Stream Media for their information (actually for their take masquerading as information.)
The MSM doesn't provide information so much as shading and puffing, terms for misinformation that is just short of a lie. I should add that the MSM isn't above a lie if they can make it look plausible or accidental-like. Also the term moderate is hard to pin down so it can easily be redefined at will by anyone with enough chutzpah to move the definition of the related extreme, be it to the left or the right. In other words, it is not a self-defined term.
This is why a republican candidate, short of being to the left of their democrat opponent, can rarely get credit for being a moderate, so the moderates, even if we believed that they exist as portrayed in common imagination, don't even know the republican candidate reflects their values.
So the republican who has sold out on principle doesn't get the support of the rarely photographed, informed and committed moderate. Also he can't attract the unaffiliated voters with appeals to his upstanding character, the rightness of his principles (which he doesn't have) or his colorful or memorable comments in defense of those principles (which he has never made).
In a word such a candidate is objectively boring, somewhat contemptible as a sell-out who is willing to sink to any level to pander for votes, and he stands to lose votes from conservatives which makes him less electable! In the mean time the press will prop up the Democrat and attack The Maverick as always. Good luck with that!
We may not like the Democrat/Republican stranglehold of the pendulum , but short of a miracle it is what we are stuck with. Because we rely mostly on conservative Republicans to fight for traditional values and the traditional freedoms such as the right to practice our religion and the right to bear arms, the election of a moderate republican means these issues are losing ground.
While we look with hope at the new crop of conservative democrats, that is all it is - hope, there is not much of a track record, and in some cases to the extent that some of them have shown themselves (Bob Casey Jr.) they are liberal as a dog's hind leg. While a Christian may or may not be a conservative republican in good conscience he can not in good conscience be a liberal on the life or marriage issues.
Add to that the concept of subsidiarity which has been so fleshed out in authentic Catholic social teaching that it is hardly in the realm of prudential judgement. Besides Rerum Novarum, Pope Benedict himself has recently written against so-called liberation theology. It is well settled that socialism and Christianity are fundamentally opposed; the socialists have recognized this for years and have been trying to destroy Christianity (which is why they attack the family.)
While one could say that the republicans preach laissez-faire capitalism, they certainly don't make law that way. In fact most new laws by definition are hands-on! It would be easy to realign them away from the big business/socialist/capitalist mix and start to take on a small business/widely disbursed ownership type of capitalism. After all what they are doing now has failed; only a new idea can beat the old socialism.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Fiat money in the real world
I read an article by a bleeding heart journalist who was scolding fiscal conservatives on their worries over how much fiat money the privately owned Federal Reserve is printing or declaring into existence. I don't have an exact quote from this guy but he was basically making the case that printing money can feed and house the poor and so forth.
The journalist in question happens to have his picture above his column and his face is always frozen in a look of deep thought as you read his shallow cogitations and I guess it is arrogance on his part that makes his columns interesting. He does fish a bit deeper into some issues that most writers see as backwaters and he is arrogant enough to think that he understands them well enough to speak with confidence on them.
This is what is interesting and revealing because on this issue he was unwittingly playing the role of the child making observations on the naked emperor. We have lived so long with fiat money that most people never give it a second thought. At best they are barely familiar with how it works; they might know that it is based on supply and demand, but it doesn't register that it is also dependent on trust.
American culture is a youth culture, or rather a culture that worships youth I should say as we all watch the spectacle of the boomers growing old without the grace of dignity. Youth culture despises history so nobody can listen for ten minutes while you try to explain how usury was not allowed in The West until after the Protestant Reformation.
In the old days usury involved actual loans of gold backed by hocked jewels and so forth, but eventually the lenders found they could just issue papers called banknotes and that they could issue more money out in notes than they had in gold. They kept making their system run leaner and leaner until they only had a small amount of actual gold compared to how much they had out in the form of banknotes.
Countries have always issued coins with less gold in the coin than the face value declares it to be worth, and people had long become accustomed to the practices of usury which we now call banking.F.D.R. with his fascist tactics finally broke the thin connection between gold and money in the American mentality so it was easy for Nixon to stop trading silver for all those now worth less dollars that other countries were trying to cash in the 70's.
The reason that Nixon had to refuse the practice of exchanging silver for paper dollars, a practice that made our paper dollars "good as gold" was because the Fed had printed too many of them. Too many dollars were chasing to few ounces of silver. Instead of "silver certificates" we now have dollars backed by the "full faith and credit" of the Federal government.
If your only commodity that you have left that you are exchanging for dollars is "full faith and credit" you had better at least act like that means something lest folks start pondering that little phrase. In other words the reason the government jolly well better not keep printing money past a credible amount is that nobody will buy those dollars with real goods.
In the real world people trade real things of value only for other things they think have equal or greater value. Right now the dollar is the most convenient way to store wealth, pay employees, buy goods; it is the only way to pay taxes.Because the United States is bigger than 1930's Germany it would take quite a bit to get to the point where a wheelbarrow of cash was traded for a loaf of bread, Children played with paper money in the streets and employees were paid daily and even twice daily.
But it is Titanic-sinking hubris to think that we are too big to have to go around icebergs or rather that we are so big and grand that we can proceed as though what happened in Germany can't happen to us. So in the real world printing infinite amounts of fiat money will not feed and house the poor - it will only destabilize our confidently balanced house of cards and cause a world wide panic that will make their previously small sufferings look like they were eating cake.
In the end we need a new way of storing wealth, exchanging value and paying employees. We need families to provide the bulk of charity and Christian love to do the rest.
The journalist in question happens to have his picture above his column and his face is always frozen in a look of deep thought as you read his shallow cogitations and I guess it is arrogance on his part that makes his columns interesting. He does fish a bit deeper into some issues that most writers see as backwaters and he is arrogant enough to think that he understands them well enough to speak with confidence on them.
This is what is interesting and revealing because on this issue he was unwittingly playing the role of the child making observations on the naked emperor. We have lived so long with fiat money that most people never give it a second thought. At best they are barely familiar with how it works; they might know that it is based on supply and demand, but it doesn't register that it is also dependent on trust.
American culture is a youth culture, or rather a culture that worships youth I should say as we all watch the spectacle of the boomers growing old without the grace of dignity. Youth culture despises history so nobody can listen for ten minutes while you try to explain how usury was not allowed in The West until after the Protestant Reformation.
In the old days usury involved actual loans of gold backed by hocked jewels and so forth, but eventually the lenders found they could just issue papers called banknotes and that they could issue more money out in notes than they had in gold. They kept making their system run leaner and leaner until they only had a small amount of actual gold compared to how much they had out in the form of banknotes.
Countries have always issued coins with less gold in the coin than the face value declares it to be worth, and people had long become accustomed to the practices of usury which we now call banking.F.D.R. with his fascist tactics finally broke the thin connection between gold and money in the American mentality so it was easy for Nixon to stop trading silver for all those now worth less dollars that other countries were trying to cash in the 70's.
The reason that Nixon had to refuse the practice of exchanging silver for paper dollars, a practice that made our paper dollars "good as gold" was because the Fed had printed too many of them. Too many dollars were chasing to few ounces of silver. Instead of "silver certificates" we now have dollars backed by the "full faith and credit" of the Federal government.
If your only commodity that you have left that you are exchanging for dollars is "full faith and credit" you had better at least act like that means something lest folks start pondering that little phrase. In other words the reason the government jolly well better not keep printing money past a credible amount is that nobody will buy those dollars with real goods.
In the real world people trade real things of value only for other things they think have equal or greater value. Right now the dollar is the most convenient way to store wealth, pay employees, buy goods; it is the only way to pay taxes.Because the United States is bigger than 1930's Germany it would take quite a bit to get to the point where a wheelbarrow of cash was traded for a loaf of bread, Children played with paper money in the streets and employees were paid daily and even twice daily.
But it is Titanic-sinking hubris to think that we are too big to have to go around icebergs or rather that we are so big and grand that we can proceed as though what happened in Germany can't happen to us. So in the real world printing infinite amounts of fiat money will not feed and house the poor - it will only destabilize our confidently balanced house of cards and cause a world wide panic that will make their previously small sufferings look like they were eating cake.
In the end we need a new way of storing wealth, exchanging value and paying employees. We need families to provide the bulk of charity and Christian love to do the rest.
Mostly government infrastructure was "created or saved"
When the stimulus bill was proposed by the socialist Republican/Democrat power structure we were told that the purpose was to create jobs right now by borrowing money to pay-forward repairs to infrastructure as well as make strategic improvements.
By infrastructure we were given to understand that they were talking about "roads and bridges." We were told scary stories about bridge co lapses, studies on traffic gridlocks, and fairy tales about efficient rail transport.
These were all proper goals of government and would have to be built or repaired sooner or later and why not right now when folks are out of work and these things would be paid for with dollars that were about to experience a massive devaluation?
While I'm always and everywhere against government spending beyond their budget, and I think the that roads are usually best built by the most local government possible, in this case I thought that they had at least made a good case. I was and am still against it, but I could see how a person without fixed principles could think this was a good idea.
I thought in the long run it would have a harmful net effect, so I opposed it on principle,but I thought they had made a convincing case that the negative net long term effect would be minimal and the short term effect would help a lot of people.
It turns out though that instead of building physical infrastructure the Obama administration is mostly building Federal government infrastructure. This is harmful in the short term, mid term and long term. It is also being financed by the last bit of credit our government has.
This means that they will not be able to later fund the physical infrastructure they said we need. It also means that any funds they raise from increasing taxes will be wasted on new federal employees that we didn't need before and won't need in the future, but will prove hard to get shut of none the less.
As to the new phrase "created or saved" it is such an affront to the sensibilities that one doesn't even have to go to the obvious question of how do you prove you saved a particular job. No, my chief objection is to the idea that a president can create or save meaningful work. Other than by hiring a few personal staff members how does he do this?
If the work is meaningful then it neither needs a hero to create it nor to save it. Everything else is "make-work" that is both meaningless and futile in that it costs taxpayers more than it benefits them. Also the money stays longer in the low-velocity public sector which drags a capitalist economy down by lowering the number of times that money changes hands per year.
Can a politician create meaningful jobs by perhaps singing to the American people to stimulate the economy as one does garden plants? Not even by singing on T.V., radio, and Internet could a president stimulate the economy on a day to day basis. About the only thing a president can do is set up favorable long term conditions by cutting the taxes and red-tape that smothers our small businesses, and protecting our manufacturing sector from unfair trade.
By infrastructure we were given to understand that they were talking about "roads and bridges." We were told scary stories about bridge co lapses, studies on traffic gridlocks, and fairy tales about efficient rail transport.
These were all proper goals of government and would have to be built or repaired sooner or later and why not right now when folks are out of work and these things would be paid for with dollars that were about to experience a massive devaluation?
While I'm always and everywhere against government spending beyond their budget, and I think the that roads are usually best built by the most local government possible, in this case I thought that they had at least made a good case. I was and am still against it, but I could see how a person without fixed principles could think this was a good idea.
I thought in the long run it would have a harmful net effect, so I opposed it on principle,but I thought they had made a convincing case that the negative net long term effect would be minimal and the short term effect would help a lot of people.
It turns out though that instead of building physical infrastructure the Obama administration is mostly building Federal government infrastructure. This is harmful in the short term, mid term and long term. It is also being financed by the last bit of credit our government has.
This means that they will not be able to later fund the physical infrastructure they said we need. It also means that any funds they raise from increasing taxes will be wasted on new federal employees that we didn't need before and won't need in the future, but will prove hard to get shut of none the less.
As to the new phrase "created or saved" it is such an affront to the sensibilities that one doesn't even have to go to the obvious question of how do you prove you saved a particular job. No, my chief objection is to the idea that a president can create or save meaningful work. Other than by hiring a few personal staff members how does he do this?
If the work is meaningful then it neither needs a hero to create it nor to save it. Everything else is "make-work" that is both meaningless and futile in that it costs taxpayers more than it benefits them. Also the money stays longer in the low-velocity public sector which drags a capitalist economy down by lowering the number of times that money changes hands per year.
Can a politician create meaningful jobs by perhaps singing to the American people to stimulate the economy as one does garden plants? Not even by singing on T.V., radio, and Internet could a president stimulate the economy on a day to day basis. About the only thing a president can do is set up favorable long term conditions by cutting the taxes and red-tape that smothers our small businesses, and protecting our manufacturing sector from unfair trade.
Intergenerational debt; women and minorities hit hardest.
Massive intergenerational debt, if you think about who will pay for it, will hit folks who tend to live longer, and folks who are young or will be born in the future.
It is well known that women tend to outlive men by quite a few years; if you doubt me ask yourself how many widows you know verses how many widowers you can think of.
Next who has been having children, especially multiple children, and whose children are most likely to have multiple children? Answer minorities (and those crazy Orthodox Catholics who although a minority are not a favored minority so they don't matter.)
So I have to wonder why the headlines aren't screaming "Massive intergenerational debt; women and minorities hit hardest. This headline should be followed by an article explaining how only racists and sexists could back this kind of spending.
Hmm, this is the problem with a partisan media; their attacks on candidates that favor traditional values are suspect and when liberal politicians are in office their short-comings are not brought to public attention at all.
This sort of thing just serves to fuel up the DNC V.S. RNC - you must take a side dynamic. The effect of this culture of Lies and exaggerated hit-pieces sucks everyone in to take a side and focus on winning the next election rather than the real issue which is changing the trend of our country.
Our country has been and is trending toward government backed collectivism; bigger box stores, every restaurant is now a chain, all our small stores,farms and banks are disappearing. Our bigger and bigger businesses are being tied down by a full figured national socialism which is a hybrid of capitalism and socialism or the predictable result of government backed capitalist collectivism.F.D.R. may have started the government on the path of destroying small businesses through regulation compliance costs that deliberately targeted small businesses, but every government since then has either done nothing to stop it or has furthered it with a government supplied easy-money policy.
The easy money destroyed family financed businesses and the new businesses that were created in this destruction soon found the money had strings attached. Now the government has tacit control of every company that is "Too big to fail", but maintaining these businesses costs money. The debt is growing so fast that it is getting to a tipping point at which it will not be able to be paid off and now it seems that none of the fakes actually cared about women and minorities after all.
It is well known that women tend to outlive men by quite a few years; if you doubt me ask yourself how many widows you know verses how many widowers you can think of.
Next who has been having children, especially multiple children, and whose children are most likely to have multiple children? Answer minorities (and those crazy Orthodox Catholics who although a minority are not a favored minority so they don't matter.)
So I have to wonder why the headlines aren't screaming "Massive intergenerational debt; women and minorities hit hardest. This headline should be followed by an article explaining how only racists and sexists could back this kind of spending.
Hmm, this is the problem with a partisan media; their attacks on candidates that favor traditional values are suspect and when liberal politicians are in office their short-comings are not brought to public attention at all.
This sort of thing just serves to fuel up the DNC V.S. RNC - you must take a side dynamic. The effect of this culture of Lies and exaggerated hit-pieces sucks everyone in to take a side and focus on winning the next election rather than the real issue which is changing the trend of our country.
Our country has been and is trending toward government backed collectivism; bigger box stores, every restaurant is now a chain, all our small stores,farms and banks are disappearing. Our bigger and bigger businesses are being tied down by a full figured national socialism which is a hybrid of capitalism and socialism or the predictable result of government backed capitalist collectivism.F.D.R. may have started the government on the path of destroying small businesses through regulation compliance costs that deliberately targeted small businesses, but every government since then has either done nothing to stop it or has furthered it with a government supplied easy-money policy.
The easy money destroyed family financed businesses and the new businesses that were created in this destruction soon found the money had strings attached. Now the government has tacit control of every company that is "Too big to fail", but maintaining these businesses costs money. The debt is growing so fast that it is getting to a tipping point at which it will not be able to be paid off and now it seems that none of the fakes actually cared about women and minorities after all.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Homosexuality activists' complaint eye opening
Homosexuality activists in their push for same-sex marriage, have a tactic - they play called the "Love card". While it is ridiculous to pretend that acts that are neither serving, unitive, nor procreative are love, this claim is however quite eyeopening on a similar issue. They contend that not being able to "marry" the same-sex person they live with deprives that person of the "thousand rights and benefits" that are only extended to married people. In order to protect their lover they need to be able to offer them these all of these rights and benefits.
This sounds to me like they are saying that it actually does take that ole piece of paper to prove you love that someone you wish to "live" with; or rather that if you really do love someone, rather than shack-up you would want them to have all of the protections and advantages provided by the marriage certificate.Only self interest, which is anathema to true love, could keep one from wanting another to benefit in this way.
I think the gay activists are inadvertently making this statement about people with heterosexuality who are in the similar situation of shacking-up; they are saying that it is unloving to not look out for the other persons best interest by making sure they get those "thousand rights and benefits." They are saying that cohabitation among other wrongs is claiming to be in eternal love while keeping the get-away car idling.
So either they and their buddies in the press, by implication, are making a judgement against shacking-up or they are disingenuous activists who don't care about contradictions in their logic. They are too busy throwing everything up against the wall and seeing if any of it sticks. The media would defend to the death the claim that living-in-sin is somehow just as good as covanental marriage, so it is fun to catch them inadvertently admitting that true lovemaking can only be physically expressed in the marital embrace.
As to the test-drive theory of love I have to say it can't be recommended by anyone who understands the basic psychology of decision making. Spiritually it thwarts the natural grace of the Sacrament and thereby kills a thousand small joys commonly enjoyed by all generations up until the 1970's.
This sounds to me like they are saying that it actually does take that ole piece of paper to prove you love that someone you wish to "live" with; or rather that if you really do love someone, rather than shack-up you would want them to have all of the protections and advantages provided by the marriage certificate.Only self interest, which is anathema to true love, could keep one from wanting another to benefit in this way.
I think the gay activists are inadvertently making this statement about people with heterosexuality who are in the similar situation of shacking-up; they are saying that it is unloving to not look out for the other persons best interest by making sure they get those "thousand rights and benefits." They are saying that cohabitation among other wrongs is claiming to be in eternal love while keeping the get-away car idling.
So either they and their buddies in the press, by implication, are making a judgement against shacking-up or they are disingenuous activists who don't care about contradictions in their logic. They are too busy throwing everything up against the wall and seeing if any of it sticks. The media would defend to the death the claim that living-in-sin is somehow just as good as covanental marriage, so it is fun to catch them inadvertently admitting that true lovemaking can only be physically expressed in the marital embrace.
As to the test-drive theory of love I have to say it can't be recommended by anyone who understands the basic psychology of decision making. Spiritually it thwarts the natural grace of the Sacrament and thereby kills a thousand small joys commonly enjoyed by all generations up until the 1970's.
Friday, March 20, 2009
transendent objection to morals
A few months ago I got hung up on reading a comment thread from a letter my cousin had written to the editor of his local rag. The letter was his justification for showing graphic pictures of aborted babies. There were three guys that posed as pro-lifers who were "just outraged at the pictures."
As I read it for a few hours it became obvious that the three main posters had homosexuality of an active kind. All of the posters who were against the graphic pictures at one time or another as much as admitted they had all either had abortions, supported abortion, and that some of them worked for planned parenthood.
I noticed their objection to morals stems from the fact that they feel their positions transcend morality and is just right because they feel it, so it is so and they don't have to explain it... a very convenient position for those who can't explain themselves.
It is and argument from culture, the majority thinks x so x is right, or snob appeal, the elite, or scientists thinks x so
x is right. This has been shortened to "science tells us" which is better on several levels, because it ignores dissenting scientists and elevates science to a god- replacement.
It is a bit ironic that when you boil it all down they are saying that their feelings transcend morality because in reality it is morality that transcends their feelings because morality comes from Transcendent Revelation.
As I read it for a few hours it became obvious that the three main posters had homosexuality of an active kind. All of the posters who were against the graphic pictures at one time or another as much as admitted they had all either had abortions, supported abortion, and that some of them worked for planned parenthood.
I noticed their objection to morals stems from the fact that they feel their positions transcend morality and is just right because they feel it, so it is so and they don't have to explain it... a very convenient position for those who can't explain themselves.
It is and argument from culture, the majority thinks x so x is right, or snob appeal, the elite, or scientists thinks x so
x is right. This has been shortened to "science tells us" which is better on several levels, because it ignores dissenting scientists and elevates science to a god- replacement.
It is a bit ironic that when you boil it all down they are saying that their feelings transcend morality because in reality it is morality that transcends their feelings because morality comes from Transcendent Revelation.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Dissenting doctors must be defrocked
Americans have a tradition of having the freedom to do what is right. This is what authentic freedom consists of. Some element of “the freedom to do what is right” is always under attack by Advocates for what is wrong, who want to force or coerce people to fall in line with their agenda. We should not be shocked when they lie, because what they are advocating is a lie and so they are “liars from the beginning.”
Freedom has always been a powerful word to Americans and it is even more powerful as we have become a nation that is enslaved in every area of its life. People are slaves to their distorted appetites for cheap sexual thrills, fake fat foods, and cheap junk from China. Not surprisingly, we are a nation that is indebted and works either for Big Brother or “The Man”. So when one wants to attack freedom one must pose as protecting or extending freedom rather than limiting it.
One of the latest rights under assault is the right of medical professionals not to be forced to violate their consciences. This sacrosanct right of medical professionals allows them to refuse to participate in such things as abortions, suicides, unnatural forms of birth control, or artificial inseminations to name a few. Basically it would protect them from having to violate the Hippocratic Oath (if we still had the Hippocratic Oath)
The American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology has recently taken unprecedented action to threaten pro-life OB-GYNs with decertification;in response Bush, in his last days as president, acted to reaffirm age-old conscience clause protections. Now Obama has asked for public comments as a prelude to rescinding these rights. Should regulatory bodies be able to force professionals to violate their consciences? I would hope that nobody would think so, but that would be hoping against "hope".
Having the license to do what is wrong under the color of civil law never fully satisfies the licentious; they will always demand everyone else’s approval (and possibly participation). They use the slogan “Live and let live”, but they never plan to “let” anyone be. They claim they are championing freedom because persons wanting to act on their new civil license need doctors to co-operate in their crimes. What they really are demanding is that an authority figure approve of and participate in their action.
Doctors and lawyers are the ultimate secular priestly authorities because both of these professions devolved from the Levites. Lawyers have seized for themselves the power to tell society what is right and wrong, but like our currency their standing has slipped a bit. This is why the vestiges of conscience need to be soothed to sleep by an authority or priest-type that still has some credibility. And for the same reason that heretical priests must be excommunicated and defrocked, for the religious left dissenting doctors must be decertified.
Freedom has always been a powerful word to Americans and it is even more powerful as we have become a nation that is enslaved in every area of its life. People are slaves to their distorted appetites for cheap sexual thrills, fake fat foods, and cheap junk from China. Not surprisingly, we are a nation that is indebted and works either for Big Brother or “The Man”. So when one wants to attack freedom one must pose as protecting or extending freedom rather than limiting it.
One of the latest rights under assault is the right of medical professionals not to be forced to violate their consciences. This sacrosanct right of medical professionals allows them to refuse to participate in such things as abortions, suicides, unnatural forms of birth control, or artificial inseminations to name a few. Basically it would protect them from having to violate the Hippocratic Oath (if we still had the Hippocratic Oath)
The American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology has recently taken unprecedented action to threaten pro-life OB-GYNs with decertification;in response Bush, in his last days as president, acted to reaffirm age-old conscience clause protections. Now Obama has asked for public comments as a prelude to rescinding these rights. Should regulatory bodies be able to force professionals to violate their consciences? I would hope that nobody would think so, but that would be hoping against "hope".
Having the license to do what is wrong under the color of civil law never fully satisfies the licentious; they will always demand everyone else’s approval (and possibly participation). They use the slogan “Live and let live”, but they never plan to “let” anyone be. They claim they are championing freedom because persons wanting to act on their new civil license need doctors to co-operate in their crimes. What they really are demanding is that an authority figure approve of and participate in their action.
Doctors and lawyers are the ultimate secular priestly authorities because both of these professions devolved from the Levites. Lawyers have seized for themselves the power to tell society what is right and wrong, but like our currency their standing has slipped a bit. This is why the vestiges of conscience need to be soothed to sleep by an authority or priest-type that still has some credibility. And for the same reason that heretical priests must be excommunicated and defrocked, for the religious left dissenting doctors must be decertified.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Che Guevera an icon of religion replacement
At church the other day and I happened to notice a Mexican man wearing a coat with an iconic picture of Che Guevera the communist murderer of Cuba. Che's crimes were so flagrant that I could not believe that someone would wear a coat with his image on it to church.
It required a second glance and as I looked at the picture closer I realised that it was not Che's image, but the image of Jesus that this pious young man had on his coat. It was an image that the artist had probably drawn without reference to Che; as for the young man he probably doesn't know who Che was.
The artists who created the image of Che on the other hand were most definitely trying to make Che a Christ figure or at least a St. Francis figure that could be easily recognized so that a display of it would act as a message, a reminder, a statement, a teaching device.
In fact in all the lands in which worship of The One True God is banned we see a whole lot of posters, statues, and writings from the "saints of the state" or the great leader. In Stalinist Russia often the only paper to be had was posters of Stalin; they had to make it a capital offence to use his image as toilet paper.
Che is the best example of this sort of thing, because, while he was every bit as guilty as the other communists of mass executions of people guilty of nothing more than having dissenting opinions, or a belief in Christianity, Che alone is known only by the title "freedom fighter" and never as a socialpathic mass murderer.
You never hear of him justifying his slaughter of Christian teens with his referral to trial by jury as a "bourgeois detail". He killed so many (thousands) unresisting Christians that he had to have their mouths taped shut as their singing was starting to unnerve his firing squad goons. Che liked to watch these executions since when it came to "freedom fighting" this was the work he was best at.
Che was also good at being popular, which is why we know that he was never any good at leading men in battle, or fighting armed opponents. In Cuba they have a leader cult that allows for only one popular man at a time so Castro had to send Che off to bring the revolution to Bolivia. Che promptly lead his men into an ambush where they were slaughtered.
Perhaps you have heard of Saint Miguel Pro the Mexican Priest who defied his atheist executioners by refusing the blindfold, spreading arms in the shape of a cross and shouting "Viva Christo Rey". In contrast, here are some quotes of Che's (courtesy of Humberto Fontova): “I'm here in Cuba's hills thirsting for blood,” Che wrote his abandoned wife in 1957. “Dear Papa, today I discovered I really like killing,” he wrote shortly afterwards.
As for Fidel Castro, he directed the Bolivian Communists to whom he sent Che “Not even an aspirin,” , meaning that Bolivia's Communists were not to assist Che in any way -- “not even with an aspirin,” if Che complained of a headache. He then proceeded to keep the American CIA informed of where to find Che.
In revisionist history Che is supposed to have sneered at the firing squad and said " Of what are you afraid of? it is only a man that you kill." This might make you wonder how such a braveheart was ever captured, right? On Oct. 8, 1967, upon finally encountering armed and determined enemies, Che quickly dropped his fully-loaded weapons and whimpered: "Don't Shoot! I'm Che! I'm worth more to you alive than dead!"
So this is our task to bring out the truth of our symbols, or saints, our miracles and therefore our message. As for our opponents we have only to tell the truth about them as well. This we must insist upon or else the lies about the saints will stand and they will be replaced by anti-saints
It required a second glance and as I looked at the picture closer I realised that it was not Che's image, but the image of Jesus that this pious young man had on his coat. It was an image that the artist had probably drawn without reference to Che; as for the young man he probably doesn't know who Che was.
The artists who created the image of Che on the other hand were most definitely trying to make Che a Christ figure or at least a St. Francis figure that could be easily recognized so that a display of it would act as a message, a reminder, a statement, a teaching device.
In fact in all the lands in which worship of The One True God is banned we see a whole lot of posters, statues, and writings from the "saints of the state" or the great leader. In Stalinist Russia often the only paper to be had was posters of Stalin; they had to make it a capital offence to use his image as toilet paper.
Che is the best example of this sort of thing, because, while he was every bit as guilty as the other communists of mass executions of people guilty of nothing more than having dissenting opinions, or a belief in Christianity, Che alone is known only by the title "freedom fighter" and never as a socialpathic mass murderer.
You never hear of him justifying his slaughter of Christian teens with his referral to trial by jury as a "bourgeois detail". He killed so many (thousands) unresisting Christians that he had to have their mouths taped shut as their singing was starting to unnerve his firing squad goons. Che liked to watch these executions since when it came to "freedom fighting" this was the work he was best at.
Che was also good at being popular, which is why we know that he was never any good at leading men in battle, or fighting armed opponents. In Cuba they have a leader cult that allows for only one popular man at a time so Castro had to send Che off to bring the revolution to Bolivia. Che promptly lead his men into an ambush where they were slaughtered.
Perhaps you have heard of Saint Miguel Pro the Mexican Priest who defied his atheist executioners by refusing the blindfold, spreading arms in the shape of a cross and shouting "Viva Christo Rey". In contrast, here are some quotes of Che's (courtesy of Humberto Fontova): “I'm here in Cuba's hills thirsting for blood,” Che wrote his abandoned wife in 1957. “Dear Papa, today I discovered I really like killing,” he wrote shortly afterwards.
As for Fidel Castro, he directed the Bolivian Communists to whom he sent Che “Not even an aspirin,” , meaning that Bolivia's Communists were not to assist Che in any way -- “not even with an aspirin,” if Che complained of a headache. He then proceeded to keep the American CIA informed of where to find Che.
In revisionist history Che is supposed to have sneered at the firing squad and said " Of what are you afraid of? it is only a man that you kill." This might make you wonder how such a braveheart was ever captured, right? On Oct. 8, 1967, upon finally encountering armed and determined enemies, Che quickly dropped his fully-loaded weapons and whimpered: "Don't Shoot! I'm Che! I'm worth more to you alive than dead!"
So this is our task to bring out the truth of our symbols, or saints, our miracles and therefore our message. As for our opponents we have only to tell the truth about them as well. This we must insist upon or else the lies about the saints will stand and they will be replaced by anti-saints
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)