Mises and Madison

"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the DETAIL of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a METAMORPHOSIS of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." -April 20, 1831 Letter from James Madison (dubbed Father of the U.S. Constitution for his role in drafting of the text; see also The Federalist Papers, published on behalf of the American system as one of limited government of by and for the people of A Free Republic)~

"MODERN CRYPTODESPOTISM, which arrogates to itself the name of liberalism, finds fault with the negativity of the concept of freedom. The censure is spurious as it refers merely to the grammatical form of the idea and does not comprehend that all civil rights can be as well defined in affirmative as in negative terms. THEY ARE NEGATIVE AS THEY ARE DESIGNED TO OBVIATE AN EVIL, NAMELY THE OMNIPOTENCE OF THE POLICE POWER [OF GOVERNMENT], AND TO PREVENT THE STATE FROM BECOMING TOTALITARIAN." -Ludwig von Mises in chapter 21, The Theory of Money and Credit~

Prov. 11:3 - If the foundations be destroyed, what shall the righteous do?

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Right vs. Left, the Bottom Line

Earlier in the day, over at Obama's Facebook Wall, I posted a link to a very brief piece by Quinn Hillyer over at the American Spectator blog (Our Infanticidal President) where Hillyer, responding to Obama's rhetoric in defense of infanticide stresses and highlights that:
Obama was talking about children who the doctors had tried to abort, but who came out still alive and breathing, in the open air. Such children are not by any definition mere fetuses. They are children. Yet he would allow them to be killed, at least by deliberate neglect.
I have talked about this part of Obama's past before because it shows what a hardcore extremist this man really is. There is so much more in his background that needs to be known but the media doesn't like to report it.
In "light" of Obama's hardline stand against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act we shouldn't be surprised that he was trying to force every organization and group which employees people such as religious charities and education institutions to pay for abortifacients and contraceptives as if it was some kind of national emergency.
If the government can force us to buy contraceptives and abortifacients, as Obama and his regime claims, why not, as RUSH has argued, force people to buy toothbrushes?
What Obama has done is indefensible and its part of an extremist agenda that has been deceiving and destroying America. Yet we find ourselves arguing with people who defend this man or don't even the truth about him or any of these outrageous and tremendously incredible positions and calls which have been severely unAmerican and alarming.
Don't take my word for it and especially don't take Obama and the Democrats word for it. Just look around record numbers of unemployment record breaking levels of people taking food stamps. Gas prices way up. Yet no attempt is made to cut spending which is out of control.
As Bill Whittle has pointed out, Iraq and Afghanistan, plus other military costs and discretionary spending combine to make 18% of spending in total of what was spent in 2011. The rest of all the money was for everything else the government does. Most of the money is domestic spending and that's what needs to be cut because all the programs and benefits are the main reason for the debt. The rise of gas prices is like the rise in the price of precious metals such as gold, silver, and it will keep going up especially as the value of the dollar goes down.
This is how America is being destroyed through economic warfare. This is exactly what Columbia professors declared in the "Cloward-Piven" Strategy : to cause economic collapse and crisis in order to force everyone into a socialist/communist system. This program and agenda has been in play for a very long time. The Democratic Party has been the political front for this plan and the unions and immigrant rights issues are only the way in which the leaders of this manipulation get more votes to gain power in the courts and government agencies to achieve their goals.
Obama is one of these radicals and it takes a radical to know one and to expose and defeat one. That has to be us, people who care about the future of America and who really want to fix our problems instead of "transform" America into something which the constitution was written in order to protect us from. We have to understand what it means to be a radical and what it means to be on the left or on the right because they are not the same thing.
The left is defined by big government "socialist" economic views and the right is the opposition to such a thing. The right is more reliant on tradition and autonomy aka self-reliance. This is why it was such a BIG LIE to claim that Mussolini and Hitler were right wingers; Mussolini wanted the state to have final say and control over businesses and Nazi is short for the German Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei which stands for "National Socialist German Workers Party."
So what about the terms radical and conservative? A radical is a sort of rebel while a conservative is more of a person who wants to protect things as they are. For instance, a KGB agent in the totalitarian USSR would fit the description of conservative, but if this agent was on American soil he would be considered radical because the supreme law of the US frames and defines a system of limited government and free enterprise. That's the US constitution which defines a people who have a government in order that it doesn't become the other way around: a government which controls a people.


  1. The funny thing is, here in the UK, we see America, and Americans as dangerously right-wing, where power is increasingly taken away from 'the people' and given to faceless corporations- hardly the definition of socialism/communism.

    As to liberalism, I don't understand the American concept, it seems to be bandied around as a universal smear on political opponents an all sides. Here it would refer to someone who wishes to decrease state intervention in people's private lives. Could you explain how Americans view 'liberal' please?

  2. Hi parnipstew, glad to give it a shot.

    Well as far as the first question goes, I am pretty familiar with the view and charge that America is "dangerously right wing" and needs to change into something more left-wing and therefore and presumably less dangerous. If people are concerned about the power which corporations hold by controlling great amounts of wealth and capital then why wouldn't you be even more concerned when big business joins forces with big government or worse, when government takes over businesses and when industries are nationalized and monopolized? Think about it, going towards the left, towards bigger government is going towards the ultimate monopoly and towards less competition. This means lower performance stagnation and slower development and progress especially in terms of innovation and efficiency. Never mind the time and potential that is lost and squandered in that scenario.

    The case for free market economics and limited government is the case which says that it is the govts job to catch cheats sneaks and thieves. To stop fraud and violence, not to give and manage its citizens affairs for them because one of the things that happens is you develop nanny-state big brother knows best POWERS while basic human nature remains unchanged. Greed, lust, temptation, and the bounded rationality factor remains in the equation only it becomes more difficult for potential victims of exploitation/deception and error to abstain from "the program" or interest which they may not wish to partake in and would rather employ their time/efforts/savings/assets in ways which they believe to be more producti e or valuable to themselves. Corporations have to serve their investors and business to profit. In order to profit they need to have more revenues than expenses. And if a corporation can't make it without bailouts or corporate welfare then it really can't create jobswithout distorting the economy and setting a castle upon sand that will collapse once a few waves of reality and real value hits and the "mal investment" bubble pops. Anyway, in order to become a partner in an enterprise/corporation/interest one must in est both money and in success of this enterprise.

    Now as far as the term 'liberal'in America goes, here it is a euphemism for radical and far left. Meanwhile, Classical Liberalism, of which American Capitalists, Conservatives, and Libertarians would speak well of is not quite the same thing and there are various theories on what happened to cause there to be this combined moral anarchy with big government of modern so-called liberalism. I highly recommend a Lecture titled "The Rise of the West" by prof. Raico which is available over at the Moses.org archives and also over at this YouTube link for a www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAFDXJXR-Cc analysis

  3. Correction: its Mises.org not "Moses" sorry about the typo it was the "auto correct feature" having a mind of its own again.