"Socialism would gather all power to the supreme party and party leaders, rising like stately pinnacles above their vast bureaucracies of civil servants no longer servants, no longer civil." - Sir Winston Churchill

Wednesday, February 04, 2009

Window repairman arrested for practicing "economic stimulus"

5 comments

“Times were so tough for Redlands window repairman Timothy Carl Klenke, police say, that he decided to take proactive measures. So he armed himself with a slingshot and began cruising around the city, shattering at least five windows and car windshields as he went.” – David Kelly, Los Angeles Times (see full article here)


It’s really funny to me how life tends to come full circle and often in the strangest ways.


While speaking with friends last night, one of them mentioned a discussion she had with an individual who insisted that government spending is the most efficient way to stimulate an economy. Naturally we drifted towards Fréderic Bastiat’s “Parable of the Broken Window” wherein he makes the case that breaking windows to stimulate economic activity is a fallacy common to simple minds in general. Yet this well thought out argument from 1848 was laid to rest when statist governments, including that of the US, adopted Keynesian economics as the default standard.


So coming across this article this morning of poor Mr. Klenke who decided to put this fallacy into practice for himself, I thought for a moment it has to be a joke. This man should not be punished for breaking the law. He is merely practicing Economic Stimulus on par with the boys and girls in Washington.


When will Americans come to the understanding that one should not give the government the power to do anything that the individual does not posses the right to do on his own. So if “breaking windows” is illegal for Timothy Carl Klenke, it must by right be illegal for the government. Or maybe I’m missing something.

Monday, February 02, 2009

The GOP Rejects Obama’s “Porkulus” Bill. So what?

3 comments
I find it rather difficult to feel appreciative of the GOP’s tortured decision to oppose Obama’s “stimulus” Bill. Ungrateful you say? Nothing of the sort.


Republicans are sent to office by voters who expect them to uphold certain principles and philosophical views irrespective of the demands of political expediency. Therefore it should never have been necessary for the constituents and commentators to demand that their Congressional representatives do that very thing. It was their job to resist the advance of Socialism. So why should they get special praise for being forced to do their duty?


This is a Representative Republic, not a Democracy. Democracy ends at the voting booth. Voters are expected to be informed and candidates expected to be honest with their views so that once the vote is cast, the electorate may rest assured that their representatives will uphold the principles on which they campaigned. Those principles must stand always in opposition to Socialism. In the words of James Madison, “It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle.”


I will no sooner praise the GOP for rejecting this Bill than I would praise a bird for spreading its wings and flying.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Obama Invokes the Carter Doctrine on Foreign Policy

5 comments
President Obama has promised to “rebuild America’s image abroad” by way of aggressive diplomacy. The idea being that the world hates America because, under former President George W. Bush, the US became an international bully. But this theme is not new. It was echoed some 35 years earlier by a US President with the worst foreign policy record imaginable, President Jimmy Carter.


Arthur Herman of Commentary Magazine, takes up this argument brilliantly in an article entitled, “The Return of Carterism?” Herman relates, in pertinent part:



“…..Carter proclaimed, governments that violated their own citizens’ human rights would no longer receive American support but would instead incur our opposition. A foreign policy so constructed would, theoretically, encourage the growth of democracy in third-world countries and reduce the appeal of more radical or revolutionary ideologies.


In the event, the opposite happened. As Jeane Kirkpatrick pointed out at the time, instead of paving the way to democracy, the withdrawal of support from petty dictators in Latin America paved the way for a surrender of American interests—at the expense of our hopes for democratization.1 The only countries on which the U.S. could bring significant pressure to bear were those ruled by authoritarians who restricted certain freedoms while leaving others intact; by contrast, we enjoyed little or no leverage at all with totalitarian regimes that systematically destroyed all
freedoms and treated us as their ideological enemy.


Thus the fallacy turned out to be not the old cold-war mentality but the new Carter human-rights policy. When we ceased supporting our bad allies, they were replaced by far worse antagonists.”

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Socialism’s Honesty Problem

0 comments
You might think this strange, but I yearn for a return to the days of the pre-1950’s Socialist movement. That time when Socialists possessed the indispensable characteristic of intellectual honesty. You may not know it given today’s political discourse, but Socialists were at one time, quite candid about their views and their prescription(s) for societal transition.


Professor Harold J Laski was one such individual. A well-regarded Socialist intellectual and member of the British Fabian Society, Laski holds his place among the most powerful figures in the movement during the early 20th century. In “Labour and the Constitution” (10, Sep 1932) Laski questions “whether in a period of transition to socialism, a Labour Government can risk the overthrow of its measures as a result of the next general election.” He leaves the question unanswered at least affirmatively. In reading the essay in its entirety, one is left with no doubts as to his feelings on the matter.


Then in Democracy in Crisis (1933) he elaborated these ideas even further. Laski concludes that parliamentary democracy must not be allowed to form an obstacle to the realization of Socialism. For in his view, not only would a Socialist government “take vast powers and legislate under them by ordinance and decree” and “suspend the classic formulae of normal opposition” but the “continuance of parliamentary government would depend on its (i.e. the Labour government’s) possession of guarantees from the Conservative Party that its work of transformation would not be disrupted by repeal in the event of its defeat at the polls.”


This, of course, was the plan for Great Britain. Yet it would appear that the American Socialists of the Democrat Party have with considerable élan, taken up the Laski formulae.

Monday, January 26, 2009

HELP!! I see dead principles

2 comments
We often ask ourselves with regard to motion pictures, whether art mirrors life or life, art. The concept was brought to the fore yet again as I pondered the current socio-political landscape of the United States, particularly with respect to the status of “Reagan era conservatism.”


Do you recall the M. Night Shyamalan film, The Sixth Sense (1999)? It’s a very entertaining piece of work indeed. But what interests me at the moment is the story of one of its title characters, Dr. Malcolm Crowe.


You see, Dr. Crowe is a brilliant therapist who one evening gets a visit from a patient whom he failed to help. That patient shoots Crowe and then kills himself. Fast forward a few years and Dr. Crowe is back in business with a new troubled patient whom he is dedicated to helping more than ever in light of the previous failure. This young man’s problem: he sees and communicates with the dead. Crowe, at first incredulous, ultimately comes to believe that his patient may not be delusional. And as he opens to the possibility that such things may in fact be possible, he is able to give this severely troubled child the help he really needs. When the deed is done, Dr. Crowe is in for yet another revelation. He discovers that he himself never survived the attack by his former patient. Dr. Crow realizes that he is one of the dead his young patient sees. Though a gifted therapist, a man of scientific realities, he never knew or even conceived the possibility that he was no longer among the living. Isn’t Dr. Crowe the epitome of the GOP and “conservatism”?


For months now we have been fed a steady diet of lamentations by “conservative” columnists and talking-heads on the death of “conservatism” or “the Reagan era”, etc. All are presented in reference to the victories of Democrats in the last mid-term Congressional elections and/or the victory of Democrats in the elections last Fall which effectively put them in a position of unchecked power at the Federal level. Now I certainly concede the fact that the Left wields enormous political power but this didn’t begin with recent electoral victories.


The sad reality is that the “Reagan era” ended when Ronald Reagan left office. An associate of mine recently penned an article entitled, “The Fault, dear Republicans, is not in our stars, but in ourselves…” wherein she castigates Republicans/conservatives for wallowing in the glory of minor victories for decades rather than staying on the offensive. Fact is this is exactly what the Right has done since Reagan. Sure there was the victory of the GOP in the 1994 mid-term elections. But after securing this victory, the GOP forgot about the struggle. The Party ultimately became the principle defender of the very bureaucratic and Statist (or dare I say Socialist) policies to which it was supposedly opposed. By 1996, the difference between the Republicans and Democrats was becoming titular, at best. If I may borrow from an old bard, Socialism by any other name is still quite odious.


The reason Socialists have been so successful is that they never allowed a victory to lull them into a false sense of complacency and security. Socialism is in every respect, a constant struggle. The battle never ends. Hence with every victory, they behave as if they are still the downtrodden masses. It takes no more than a cursory gander at the society around us to appreciate the fact that the Left dominates every aspect of the culture (journalism, entertainment, academia, government), and has so for decades on end.


Obama’s ascendancy did not signal the death of “conservatism.” “Conservatism”, like Dr. Malcolm Crowe, has been dead for quite some time. The signs have long been visible to those of us with the sixth political sense. It just took a while for "conservatives" to realize the fact.

Wednesday, October 08, 2008

"It's The Economy, Stupid!!!"

0 comments
In speaking with a close associate who happens to be a staunch supporter of Senator Obama, the conversation turned to Obama’s associations with persons of dubious character. Key among them, unrepentant Marxist terrorist William Ayers (Weathermen Underground). Let us not forget however that Senator Obama is also a follower and admirer of the late Saul Alinsky, Marxist and author of "Reveille for Radicals" (1946) and "Rules for Radicals" (1971) as well as Christian Socialist Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Such persons are typical of those who rise to superstar stature on the Left. Their violent and vitriolic attacks upon all that they perceive as inimical to their visions of Socialism has not caused them to be ostracized from the Leftist mainstream, rather it is the ultimate resume enhancer. The usual retort from the Left is that their transgressions were committed long ago and therefore need not be an issue in the present. The sad fact is that there are many who chose to accept such vacuous logic as sound.

Would one have a similar indifference towards a politician who expressed admiration for Germany’s National Socialist Labour Party, Adolph Hitler, Tamany Hall or the Confederate States of America? Indeed not. But attacks upon the pillars of American society (Individual liberty, free enterprise, rule of law and private property rights) earns one the highest accolades from the Left.

Some claim that what really matters is the economy, hence discussion about Obama’s associations with the likes of Ayers, Rev Wright and Alisky are mere distractions. On the contrary. Because it is the economy that matters most in the eyes of some, his associations with radical Socialists is crucial. To the extent that he shares their worldview, we gain unambiguous insight into his vision for America; socially, politically and yes, economically.

We do not focus on Obama’s associates instead of the economy. We focus on them because of it.

Wednesday, January 02, 2008