Are Politicians Really Ever Shocked?

HumanEvents.com reporter John Hayward tells us that former Mayor Rudy Giuliani is shocked by what Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry are saying.

Giuliani asked, “What the hell are you doing, Newt?  I expect this from Saul Alinsky!  This is what Saul Alinsky taught Barack Obama, and what you’re saying is part of the reason we’re in so much trouble right now.”

Giuliani broadened his criticism to include the attacks on Bain Capital launched by both Gingrich and Texas Governor Rick Perry, who he described as “a very close friend of mine.”  “I’m shocked at what they’re doing,” said Giuliani.  “It’s ignorant and dumb.

Really? Newt doing what politicians do is dumb? How is it dumb for Newt to do and say whatever it takes to win an election? Ultimately, Newt has always voted for destroying liberty when government's power is challenged. And he has always gone in the direction he must to retain personal power.

The truth is that there isn't a lick of difference between Newt and Romney. Think about it. Was this the best criticism Newt could come up with? Romney is for National Health care, as long as it is in Massachusetts. Yet Newt has wanted Single Payer as well. So he can't criticize Romney on that point. Newt was for the bailouts as well as Romney no matter what they may have said publicly. Romney will grow government just like all of the previous Republicans. So will Newt. Romney will continue corporate welfare. So will Newt. Romney will continue printing money and continue Centralized Banking [the major/fundamental source of our nation's problem]. So will Newt. Romney will not do a thing about the unConstitutional bureaucracies that are making laws as they go. So will Newt. So in substance what is the difference between them?

Newt also did what he thought, at the time, was politically expedient, not conservatively principled as he likes to portray himself, when he thought he needed to stand with Nancy Pelosi on Global Warming or with Clinton on Universal Health-care in order to gain political advantage. You, the voter, must remember that Newt will always stand with tyrants. The simple reason is this. What is good for government is bad for people. What is good for people is bad for government. Since Newt is a Big Government crony capitalist himself, Newt will always vote for his own governmental power.

So this phony baloney "shocked" Giuliani is just that. Phony Baloney!

What Am I Missing Here?

Rush obviously talked about the NH Primary vote on today's show. Now we know Rush can't stand Ron Paul. What I thought was interesting was his take on the exit polls.

You go to Ron Paul, 33% of his voters, according to exit polls, were somewhat liberal; 24% were moderate; 0 were very liberal.  So 57% of the voters that voted for Ron Paul were not Republican conservatives.

Now obviously Ron Paul is not going to appeal to the Santorum Conservatives that want to go to war with Iran. Therefore, moderate Republicans are obviously going to vote for Romney...right? But wait,

Romney, however, wants Ron Paul to stay in.  Everybody is urging everybody else to get out of this except for Ron Paul.  They want Ron Paul to keep pounding away at Santorum and Newt.  They want Ron Paul to continue to get big numbers and take away any high second- or third-place finishes from Santorum or Gingrich or Perry or anybody else.  So the powers that be realize the monkey wrench that Ron Paul represents.  Ron Paul is a conservative killer.  Ron Paul kills the conservative vote, and the Romney camp wants him in there, encouraging him to stay in there.

What am I missing here? Isn't this backwards? If they didn't vote for Ron Paul, wouldn't they be voting for Mitt Romney? Could it be that Conservatives that really want the Constitution followed are voting for Ron Paul?

This Is Just Too Funny

Conservative Icon Wants His Cake and Eat It Too

This afternoon, I had the chance to listen to about five minutes of Limbaugh's show. It also just happened to be when a Ron Paul supporter called in. As usual, Rush simply repeats the "Ron Paul blames America first" routine. Now the caller did respond with a question follwing Rush's question about nukes.

RUSH: Do you think the Iranians should get a nuclear weapon to protect themselves against us?

CALLER: Why...? How would you like it if they were some other country was invading us all the time?

Now of course Ron Paul doesn't support nukes for any one, but they exist, and we have to live with them. But what is interesting about Rush Limbaugh's position is that he simply assumes that Iran will nuke us if they get nukes. What else can one conclude from Rush's position other than Rush wants to get into another War, this time with Iran?

Other countries with Muslim radicals have nukes. Yet Rush attempts to paint all of Iran as being a bunch of crazy Radical Muslims.

RUSH: The idea that is trying to wipe us out.

CALLER: That's not true at all.

RUSH: Militant Islam. He's content for them to get nuclear weapons!

So is Iran militant Islam? As usual, the first thing to go when war time hits is truth. Watch this video count how many radical Muslims appear.

Do we really want to go to war with a nation of people that in their everyday lives are minding their own business. But I have no doubt Rush is going to use more anti-Ron Paul arguments painting him as a blame America first pacifist nut. The caller raised the question of military invading other countries.

CALLER: Why...? How would you like it if they were some other country was invading us all the time?

RUSH: Well, you know --

CALLER: You wouldn't like it. We would not like it!

Rush later responds by saying:

RUSH:  By the way, who is attacking Iran, anyway?

Rush sort of has a point. It is true we do not have a base there at this time. Yet can Rush really deny that the American government has never intervened in the private affairs of Iran? As you can read here an article by Steven La Tulippe, the article states an historical fact little known by Americans.

Although that hostage-taking was brutal and unjustified, many Americans lack a more global perspective of the history of American interactions with Persia. One of the most critical events in that relationship occurred over 50 years ago during the Eisenhower Administration. While Americans may know little about Operation Ajax, its memory still evokes intense anger from nearly every Iranian. 

The brief version (for a more thorough history of the events surrounding Operation Ajax, I refer the reader to Sandra Mackey's excellent book The Iranians) concerns the overthrow of Muhammad Mossadeq's short-lived, democratic government by the CIA in 1953 and the reinstallation of the Shah to the throne of Iran.

In 1951, the control of Iran's oil fields by a British company (the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, or AIOC) became a hot political topic. The Iranian people believed, with some justification, that the existing deal between the Iranian government and AIOC unfairly benefited the company. Muhammad Mossadeq, then a member of the Iranian parliament, took the lead in demanding a renegotiation of the pact. The masses of the Iranian people rallied to his standard and quickly made him the most revered leader in the land. The Shah, who then ruled as an authoritarian monarch, lost control of events as his previously powerless parliament (the Majlis) took on a life of its own.

So Rush is just outright wrong. The CIA has in the past, overthrown a democratic government so that oil companies can maintain their power in foreign countries. So to say that Iranians don't have the right to defend themselves against an aggressive foreign power, in this case the United States, is hypocritical at best. Of course, Rush stands in the same crowd of people who believe Lincoln was justified in killing over half a million people to centralize the very government he says shouldn't have so much power. Kind of odd, don't you think?

In conclusion, Rush is just inconsistent and outright wrong on the facts. And as my good friend often says, "Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument."

Saving Too Much?

Isn't this brilliant? The top Yahoo news story warns you are probably saving too much. This paragraph is just over the top.

But there's reason to believe that oft-quoted 80 percent figure is wildly on the high side. That, in turn, makes the retirement calculations based upon it also wildly off. And that means if you're trying to save enough money to produce that 80 percent figure, you may be putting away too much, or skimping unnecessarily on the early years of retirement.

Assumption? That you are merely saving so that you can spend it later. But there are all kinds of other reasons to save. Merely replacing my income doesn't have to be one of them. But the idea that you are saving too much to replace your income is misguided just based upon their own false premises. Just as the as the article admits,

For example, when will you pay off your mortgage and finish helping your kids pay for college? How much will you save in taxes once you're not working? Add in more for costs, such as health care, that could go up.

Exactly! How do you know what inflation will do to your money? We all know that Keynesian economists don't like saving money for one simple reason, every time they print money, they steal from savers! So what is the point in saving in an economy that is built on robbing from our future?

Of course, what if they have no future? The last sentence says it all.

Christopher Van Slyke, a money manager in Austin, Texas. He tells some of his newly retired clients they can start by pulling 5.5 percent or 6 percent out of their portfolios for a few years, as long as they understand that that rate isn't sustainable for three decades.

Of course, it may not have to be. [emphasis mine]

We live in an economy where borrowers do not borrow from savers, but instead borrows printed money. For if everyone borrows, and there are no savers, where does the money come from?

Hey, your money is going to run out anyway. And the implication seems to be that you're probably going to be dead. So don't worry about it.

Theology Matters

Bill Anderson wrote a brief post on Lew Rockwell's blog this morning. Now I have noticed several statements that, though, I bet they do know the reasons for certain quasi-religious claims, the contributors of the blog seem to hide their knowledge in an attempt not to get into overly religious discussions on a political site.

First Bill quotes a Leftist, Daily Beast's, Michelle Goldberg:

It might seem that Paul’s libertarianism is the very opposite of theocracy, but that’s true only if you want to impose theocracy at the federal level. In general, Christian Reconstructionists favor a radically decentralized society, with communities ruled by male religious patriarchs. Freed from the power of the Supreme Court and the federal government, they believe that local governments could adopt official religions and enforce biblical law.

To which Bill responds by saying,

So-called biblical law would require stoning of gays and other measures that would mirror the Taliban, she writes. (Not surprisingly, Goldberg misrepresents both Covenant Theology and the diversity of opinion of people who fall under that theological umbrella.) So there you have it: Ron Paul's libertarianism is going to create a new American Taliban. Look for more of this kind of nonsense as clueless mainstream reporters try to write about someone who does not believe the State should be an object of worship.

Bill is absolutely right. Covenant Theology is very able to answer the objection by the Left's thinking concerning religious people wanting to establish some kind of Theocracy, but some seem to overlook that Covenant Theology is only now coming back into popularity in mainstream Evangelicalism.

Dispensationalism has been the popularized eschatology and theological framework for quite some time. It is Dispensationalism that has led many to favor the nation of Israel as if they were God's modern day people and theocracy. Of course, since Dispensationalism's utter predictive failure of Christ's Second Coming through date setting schemes, Dispensationalism is waning. But I think it might explain some of the statements on LRC.

As a Christian, I recognize "theology matters". It greatly impacts life and culture. Good theology does so in a good way. Poor theology does so in a poor way. So when women like Michelle Goldberg misunderstand (purposeful or not) politically active Christians, I am not convinced it is entirely her fault. Yet after trying to explain sound theology to people such as Michelle Goldberg, it is my experience she has no intention of trying to understand. She fears that without Central Planning from the Federal Government, the homosexual agenda will not go forth. And of course, as one who has embraced Libertarianism to an extent as a Christian, I have made that exact same argument. She is quite right for seeing Libertarianism's stress on private property rights as something to fear.

In other words, the easiest way to stop the culture war and/or win it from a conservative perspective is to restore private property rights. Then people are free to be who they are, and that includes being able to discriminate with your property. That is something, I think, Michelle fears far more than anything else.


Now she does mischaracterize Covenant Theology when she wrote,

In fact, they’re often much further to the right. While dispensationalists believe that Christ will return imminently and establish a biblical reign on earth, covenant theologians tend to believe its man’s job to create Christ’s kingdom before he comes back. The most radical faction of covenant theology is called Christian Reconstructionism, a movement founded by R. J. Rushdoony that seeks to turn the book of Leviticus into law, imposing the death penalty for gay people, blasphemers, unchaste women, and myriad other sinners.

Covenant Theology does no such thing. What I think she is referring to is a position called Theonomy. Theonomists are usually under the umbrella of Covenant Theology, but theonomy is an eschatological position based squarely in Post-Millenialism, and she may very well be right in linking this with an American version of Christian Nationalism. However, even its modern proponents such as Greg Bahnsen saw that Old Testament laws as cited by Michelle were problematic and that far more work needed to be done in this area.

In conclusion, the arguments provided by Michelle are in my opinion emotional and fear-mongering. She admits that she is taking the fact that her argument is based upon the "fundamentalist faction that has until now been considered a fringe even on the Christian right" and that this position is a small minority among those who are Ron Paul supporters.

Ron Paul is a libertarian. Libertarianism and Theonomy are just not compatible.

What Is Liberal?

Most people tend to think history starts the day they were born and that things have always been the way they see them now. But when we think of the "old days", we often have bizarre pictures in our minds. Yet we still read back into the "old days" in an anachronistic fashion. In the picture above, not only is there just outright nonsense, we have a misuse of the term "liberal".

Words in the English language change in ways that perhaps have not done so as quickly as past generations. Even in my short life, I have seen words radically change in meaning. The term "Liberal" has perhaps suffered abuse unlike any other in modern political discourse. I first recognized this in Robert Bork's book, Slouching Towards Gomorrah, in which he argues (right or wrong) that most of those who consider themselves conservative could more accurately be described as "classical liberals". He does this because it is evident that modern liberalism has nothing to do with the liberalism of the late 19th century. But as he also notes, our nation has always had a natural bent within its historical liberalism to "slouch" in the direction of modern liberalism.

So let's deal with the above picture to see its distortions of the word. But I wish to work backwards in the list.

1) First, the Clear Air Act was signed into law by President Nixon in 1970. Yes, the evil Nixon signed into law the draconian Act which simply empowered the Federal government with unConstitutional power to regulate aspects of our lives. I would hardly think that Nixon has been considered a modern liberal.

Also, it was Nixon, who established the EPA. Hardly a so-called conservative icon on this issue.

2) Now it is true to say that modern liberals established Medicare. However, it is simply assumed that Medicare is right or good because it supposedly ensures health care for the elderly. However, as usual, the liars for big government predicted low costs to the tax payer for the program. The reality, however, has been nothing short of disaster and future bankruptcy of our nation's wealth.

To this day, we see no arguments from the Left or Modern Liberals that justify its existence. It is simply might makes right. They will not even attempt to argue the real arguments put forth by Medicare's opponents. Just call them evil for not wanting Big Government's ability to steal from one person in order to give to another. Libertarians make one simple argument that is often overlooked. If it is immoral/illegal for a private citizen to do an action, why is it moral/legal for the government to perform the same action?

3) The Civil Rights Act was and is a crime against liberty. In the name of freedom, the government has taken away your right to do with your property as you see fit. The irony here is that Democrats stood against the Act, not Republicans.

Classical Liberalism stood for private property rights. It was believed that legislating and empowering government to force citizens at gun point to be nice to their neighbor would only create more tensions than already existed. Walter Williams, a black man has argued as much here.

4) Modern Liberals may have ended segregation, but it was social engineering and central planning that brought about the nasty racism during the post-civil war era and Reconstructionism by the North. There are far too many factors and relevant issues to be discussed on a blog. But simply arguing liberals ended segregation is too simplistic and often hypocritical.

5) Modern Liberals during the era of President Roosevelt hi-jacked the term liberal. Up until this point, the term still had more libertarian meaning. However, with big government comes big changes. And yet, here again, we have an example of arrogance. Social Security is simply ASSUMED to be good.Why? Emotional arguments run the range from protecting old people to being good economics. Yet as I have demonstrated before, why is a program that otherwise would be illegal/immoral in the private sector all of a sudden be legal/moral simply because government does it? Don't bother waiting for an answer. None will be coming soon.

And by the way, the picture says it pulls people out of poverty. Do you know of any wealthy people that became wealthy because of Social Security? Of course not. But we all know of Americans who have become dependent on a system that keeps them there. If there was ever an example of statism, SS certainly would be on top of the list.

6) Liberals may have gotten African Americans the right to vote, but here again, we have to ask about the term. Was it not the Republican Party that was formed by the Abolitionist movement? Yet how many associate Republicans as being the defender of black people? Once again, a liberal does not necessarily mean what you think.

I am not a modern liberal at all. I am more of a conservative libertarian. As a libertarian, I believe in personal freedom. And being consistent, if I have the right to vote, why not a black man?

7) I saved the right to vote for women for last simply because it is more difficult and far more emotional. Modern Liberals to not take into account why those in the past could not vote. The reason is simple. Democracies were abhorred by the Framers of our land.

There are many reasons for our Founders despising democracies but it should be noted that it is always easier to cry discrimination and lie about the evils of rich people than to explain the historical and sound reasons for why laws were made what they were.

It is obvious that when non-private property owners get the power to vote, then government will eventually be given the power to steal from property owners and give to those who do not own private property. In the culture of the day men owned property, and if liberals are supposedly going to be true to their moral relativism, then why are they so quick to judge past cultures?

Now I have no doubt that men were also wanting to maintain power. But who among us doesn't see that most women would vote purely based upon an emotional level. This may sound like a terrible thing to say, but as any married man knows, his wife will often want to help others by emotional reasons. This is obviously a good thing, for it keeps men/husbands in check, but it can also swing society in the other direction.

As I stated earlier. Why is it ok for government to steal from property owners to give to those who do not own property? Don't hold your breath for a sound reason, but you will certainly get plenty of emotional ones.

Now don't take me wrong. Taxation without representation is wrong. Therefore, to be consistent, women property owners should have had the right to vote. Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument. In this case, inconsistency may have led in part to past views as being wrong  when in fact they were simply inconsistently applied.

In conclusion, since this is getting too long, the term liberal has meant different things over the decades and centuries. It has clearly gone from a more libertarian to a modern Leftist and socially wacko. It clearly has become pejorative in modern usage. Yet the anti-Republicans (as they call themselves) are hardly doing us any favors. This is simply propaganda for modern Leftists by using and trying to claim a term while never actually defining it.