About This Blog

Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) was the greatest economist of my time. His greatest works can be accessed here at no charge.

Mises believed that property, freedom and peace are and should be the hallmarks of a satisfying and prosperous society. I agree. Mises proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the prospect for general and individual prosperity is maximized, indeed, is only possible, if the principle of private property reigns supreme. What's yours is yours. What's mine is mine. When the line between yours and mine is smudged, the door to conflict opens. Without freedom (individual liberty of action) the principle of private property is neutered and the free market, which is the child of property and freedom and the mother of prosperity and satisfaction, cannot exist. Peace is the goal of a prosperous and satisfying society of free individuals, not peace which is purchased by submission to the enemies of property and freedom, but peace which results from the unyielding defense of these principles against all who challenge them.

In this blog I measure American society against the metrics of property, freedom and peace.

Monday, January 30, 2012

The Choice In Florida: Economic Freedom Or Totalitarian Socialism

Voting can be a maddening process. Sometimes it helps to strip away the political fluff and narrow the choice down to one of two philosophical alternatives.

I suggest voters in Florida read the following few paragraphs. I guarantee the choice before them will be much easier:

Those interventionists who consider interventionism as a method of bringing about full socialism step by step are at least consistent. If the measures adopted fail to achieve the beneficial results expected and end in disaster, they ask for more and more government interference until the government has taken over the direction of all economic activities. But those interventionists who look at interventionism as a means of improving capitalism and thereby preserving it are utterly confused.

In the eyes of these people all the undesired and undesirable effects of government interference with business are caused by capitalism. The very fact that a governmental measure has brought about a state of affairs which they dislike is for them a justification of further measures. They fail, for instance, to realize that the role monopolistic schemes play in our time is the effect of government interference such as tariffs and patents. They advocate government action for the prevention of monopoly. One could hardly imagine a more unrealistic idea. For the governments whom they ask to fight monopoly are the same governments who are devoted to the principle of monopoly. Thus, the American New Deal Government embarked upon a thorough-going monopolistic organization of every branch of American business, by the NRA, and aimed at organizing American farming as a vast monopolistic scheme, restricting farm output for the sake of substituting monopoly prices for the lower market prices. It was a party to various international commodity control agreements the undisguised aim of which was to establish international monopolies of various commodities. The same is true of all other governments. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was also a party to some of these intergovernmental monopolistic conventions.[9] Its repugnance for collaboration with the capitalistic countries was not so great as to cause it to miss any opportunity for fostering monopoly.

The programme of this self-contradictory interventionism is dictatorship, supposedly to make people free. But the liberty its supporters advocate is liberty to do the "right" things, i.e., the things they themselves want to be done. They are not only ignorant of the economic problem involved. They lack the faculty of logical thinking.

The most absurd justification of interventionism is provided by those who look upon the conflict between capitalism and socialism as if it were a contest over the distribution of income. Why should not the propertied classes be more compliant? Why should they not accord to the poor workers a part of their ample revenues? Why should they oppose the government's design to raise the share of the underprivileged by decreeing minimum wage rates and maximum prices and by cutting profits and interest rates down to a "fairer" level? Pliability in such matters, they say, would take the wind from the sails of the radical revolutionaries and preserve capitalism. The worst enemies of capitalism, they say, are those intransigent doctrinaires whose excessive advocacy of economic freedom, of laisser-faire and Manchesterism renders vain all attempts to come to a compromise with the claims of labour. These adamant reactionaries are alone responsible for the bitterness of contemporary party strife and the implacable hatred it generates. What is needed is the substitution of a constructive programme for the purely negative attitude of the economic royalists. And, of course, "constructive" is in the eyes of these people only interventionism.

However, this mode of reasoning is entirely vicious. It takes for granted that the various measures of government interference with business will attain those beneficial results which their advocates expect from them. It blithely disregards all that economics says about their futility in attaining the ends sought, and their unavoidable and undesirable consequences. The question is not whether minimum wage rates are fair or unfair, but whether or not they bring about unemployment of a part of those eager to work. By calling these measures just, the interventionist does not refute the objections raised against their expediency by the economists. He merely displays ignorance of the question at issue.

The conflict between capitalism and socialism is not a contest between two groups of claimants concerning the size of the portions to be allotted to each of them out of a definite supply of goods. It is a dispute concerning what system of social organization best serves human welfare. Those fighting socialism do not reject socialism because they envy the workers the benefits they (the workers) could allegedly derive from the socialist mode of production. They fight socialism precisely because they are convinced that it would harm the masses in reducing them to the status of poor serfs entirely at the mercy of irresponsible dictators.

In this conflict of opinions everybody must make up his mind and take a definite stand. Everybody must side either with the advocates of economic freedom or with those of totalitarian socialism. One cannot evade this dilemma by adopting an allegedly middle-of-the-road position, namely interventionism. For interventionism is neither a middle way nor a compromise between capitalism and socialism. It is a third system. It is a system the absurdity and futility of which is agreed upon not only by all economists but even by the Marxians.

There is no such thing as an "excessive" advocacy of economic freedom. On the one hand, production can be directed by the efforts of each individual to adjust his conduct so as to fill the most urgent wants of the consumers in the most appropriate way. This is the market economy. On the other hand, production can be directed by authoritarian decree. If these decrees concern only some isolated items of the economic structure, they fail to attain the ends sought, and their own advocates do not like their outcome. If they come up to all-round regimentation, they mean totalitarian socialism.

Men must choose between the market economy and socialism. The state can preserve the market economy in protecting life, health and private property against violent or fraudulent aggression; or it can itself control the conduct of all production activities. Some agency must determine what should be produced. If it is not the consumers by means of demand and supply on the market, it must be the government by compulsion.
Ludwig von Mises, Planned Chaos, 1947 [Emphasis Mine]
There is only one candidate running for President, including the incumbent, who has spent a lifetime advocating the market economy. As his opponents recommend the infamous "middle-of-the-road" mixed economy of interventionism to one degree or another, Ron Paul fights them tooth and nail, unflinchingly standing tall for unhampered economic freedom.

Choose between the market economy and socialism. As Mises writes: "Some agency must determine what should be produced. If it is not the consumers by means of demand and supply on the market, it must be the government by compulsion."

Choose economic freedom! Choose Ron Paul!

Sunday, January 29, 2012

Capitalism Is Outdated!!!

Perhaps you've seen this article linked in the Drudge Report: Davos elites to seek reforms of 'outdated' capitalism. It begins:
Economic and political elites meeting this week at the Swiss resort of Davos will be asked to urgently find ways to reform a capitalist system that has been described as "outdated and crumbling."
Here's an opinion on the subject: 
The characteristic mark of this age of dictators, wars and revolutions is its anti-capitalistic bias. Most governments and political parties are eager to restrict the sphere of private initiative and free enterprise. It is an almost unchallenged dogma that capitalism is done for and that the coming of all-round regimentation of economic activities is both inescapable and highly desirable.

None the less capitalism is still very vigorous in the Western Hemisphere. Capitalist production has made very remarkable progress even in these last years. Methods of production were greatly improved. Consumers have been supplied with better and cheaper goods and with many new articles unheard of a short time ago. Many countries have expanded the size and improved the quality of their manufacturing. In spite of the anti-capitalistic policies of all governments and of almost all political parties, the capitalist mode of production is in many countries still fulfilling its social function in supplying the consumers with more, better and cheaper goods. 

It is certainly not a merit of governments, politicians and labour union officers that the standard of living is improving in the countries committed to the principle of private ownership of the means of production. Not offices and bureaucrats, but big business deserves credit for the fact that most of the families in the United States own a motor car and a radio set. The increase in per capita consumption in America as compared with conditions a quarter of a century ago is not an achievement of laws and executive orders. It is an accomplishment of business men who enlarged the size of their factories or built new ones.

One must stress this point because our contemporaries are inclined to ignore it. Entangled in the superstitions of statism and government omnipotence, they are exclusively preoccupied with governmental measures. They expect everything from authoritarian action and very little from the initiative of enterprising citizens. Yet, the only means to increase well-being is to increase the quantity of products. This is what business aims at.

It is grotesque that there is much more talk about the achievements of the Tennessee Valley Authority than about all the unprecedented and unparalleled achievements of American privately operated processing industries. However, it was only the latter which enabled the United Nations to win the war and today enables the United States to come to the aid of the Marshall Plan countries.

The dogma that the State or the Government is the embodiment of all that is good and beneficial and that the individuals are wretched underlings, exclusively intent upon inflicting harm upon one another and badly in need of a guardian, is almost unchallenged. It is taboo to question it in the slightest way. He who proclaims the godliness of the State and the infallibility of its priests, the bureaucrats, is considered as an impartial student of the social sciences. All those raising objections are branded as biased and narrow-minded. The supporters of the new religion of statolatry are no less fanatical and intolerant than were the Mohammedan conquerors of Africa and Spain.

History will call our age the age of the dictators and tyrants. We have witnessed in the last years the fall of two of these inflated supermen. But the spirit which raised these knaves to autocratic power survives. It permeates textbooks and periodicals, it speaks through the mouths of teachers and politicians, it manifests itself in party programmes and in plays and novels. As long as this spirit prevails there cannot be any hope of durable peace, of democracy, of the preservation of freedom or of a steady improvement in the nation's economic well-being.    Ludwig von Mises, 1947

My point?

Nothing has changed in the last 65 years except the virulence with which the free market is berated.

Will we ever learn?

Saturday, January 28, 2012

Ignorance Or Spite?

There is an excellent post at Powerline by John H. Hinderaker on the President's State of the Union Address. In his article, Of The Ignorant, By The Ignorant, For The Ignorant, Hinderaker points out an obvious Obama lie with regard to the nation's energy reserves. He also exposes obvious lying by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) in the same regard.

Though the article is excellent, I was fascinated by a particular comment made by a reader, Michael Johnson. Reacting to another reader's comment about socialist redistribution of income in this country, Johnson posted a link to the website of OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) and to this page specifically. The OECD research paper contains this paragraph, which Johnson quoted:

Redistribution of income by government plays a relatively minor role in the United States. Only in Korea is the effect smaller. This is partly because the level of spending on social benefits such as unemployment benefits and family benefits is low – equivalent to just 9% of household incomes, while the OECD average is 22%.
This comment should give pause to every American who thinks this country is not exceptional or who worries that this country is heading down the path toward social democracy.

What has made this country great is its tradition of private enterprise rather than public welfare, subsidy and influence peddling. This is a trend President Obama and company are trying to reverse. They aim to bring the level of American governmental social spending up to the OECD average. Mr. Obama's first term in office has been a good start.

Of course, Mr. Obama and Mr. Johnson would say an increased level of social spending is necessary to offset the power and influence enjoyed by the "rich" in this country. The joke is that as government grows in influence and power, those in positions of authority in government are in a position to dispense influence and power to the highest bidder. Those with a vast amount of disposable income buy influence prodigiously. Those with the political clout of numbers and money, like labor unions, buy influence as well.

Who loses in such a system? The very individuals who have neither money nor power.

The ultimate joke is that so many of these moneyless and powerless individuals think they are better off in such a social welfare, income redistributionist system. They see no advantage in reducing the size of government or the power and influence of those in government. They would rather envy their neighbor's wealth, and send elected agents of government to seize it, than arrange the political and economic system in this country in such a way as to make it possible for them to earn and keep their own wealth.

They trust agents of government more than they trust themselves!

Perhaps Powerline is on to something. My only quibble is that "ignorance" is hardly an adequate explanation for such willful and self-sacrificial acceptance of the welfare state and its blatant lies. My mother would call it cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Friday, January 27, 2012

No Compromise

In this article at Political Realities Michael Fields argues that "progress" could be made in Washington if only Republicans would compromise with Democrats on the issue of increasing taxes on the "wealthy."

Compromise between Republicans and Democrats in the federal government always has the effect of moving government policy leftward. Why? Because Democrats always act to satisfy their base which is left and growing far left. The Republican base is center right, so any compromise winds up going left by increments.

Moreover, how do you compromise with The Anti-capitalistic Mentality? Republicans have been doing so for more than a hundred years and look where it’s got us. In his book, The Anti-capitalistic Mentality, Ludwig von Mises writes:

“All those rejecting capitalism on moral grounds as an unfair system are deluded by their failure to comprehend what capital is, how it comes into existence and how it is maintained, and what the benefits are which are derived from its employment in production processes.”

Compromise is good when both parties are aiming at the same goal. Compromise is bad when one party opposes capitalism on moral grounds and aims to destroy it.

The time for solving our American fiscal and monetary crisis by tweaking the edges of the tax system has come and gone. Fields writes: “How do we make progress when both sides have taken such strict positions?”

The implication is that "progress" toward a more capitalistic system is possible by compromise. It isn’t. Even a good share of the Republican negotiators are of the anti-capitalistic mentality.

Fields asks incredulously: “Conservatives wouldn’t accept a $500 billion tax increase combining higher rates on the wealthy and the elimination of tax disparities if it was accompanied by $5 trillion in spending cuts where the timing of both were well matched?”

I wouldn’t. To believe the Democrats would actually cut (and I mean REALLY cut) federal spending by $5-trillion is fantastically naïve. Why? Because Democrats are rabidly anti-capitalistic and Republicans are only moderately less so. Until that mentality changes, there is no hope in compromise.

Now is the time for those of us who are of the capitalistic mentality to take a strict position and stand firm: No new taxes.

Sunday, January 22, 2012

Vichy America

Defeating an occupier is cut-and-dried when the invader wears jack boots and brandishes a rifle. In such a case there is no nuance to consider, no truth to divine, no advantage to weigh. There is only the stark line between life and death.

In 1940, after the Nazis subdued and occupied France, the invaders moved the capitol of that war-torn country from Paris to Vichy, a small town to the southeast. There the Nazis allowed the collaborator, Philippe Petain, to establish a puppet government: État Français (The French State). Others knew it as the traitorous regime of Vichy France.

No brutal, foreign army has yet invaded America. Nor has a conquering enemy installed a puppet regime in Washington. Still, this country is occupied. For over a century intellectuals and academics have invaded the American consciousness with the foreign mush of socialist and progressive ideology. American citizens have freely elected politicians loyal to this ideology. These politicians consequently established the massive American social welfare state centered in Washington, DC: Vichy America.

Sunday With Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen: On Temptation

God love you.

Friday, January 20, 2012

THE TOP FIVE, 1/20/12

Economic Illiteracy? Obama: Unemployment benefits create more jobs than Keystone pipeline
Anyone who believes that government can't create jobs is fooling himself. Every civil servant in America works at a government-created job. When government writes checks to the unemployed, the government creates a job for the person writing those checks, and for the administrators of the department supervising the writing of those checks, and for the postman who must deliver those checks. Moreover, when the unemployed cash their checks, they spend the cash on food, rent, clothing, gas, cigarettes, etc. etc. Jobs are created in the businesses that produce and market these products. The proper questions are: 1) How many jobs or potential jobs are destroyed in the private market when the government taxes individuals in order to payout unemployment benefits?; and 2) Do government-created jobs or private market-created jobs produce goods and services that best satisfy consumer demand?

Economic & Historical Illiteracy? Ron Paul: Tax Rates Should be Zero
I suggest Ron Paul critics, who suggest the candidate is insane because of his proposal that income tax rates go to zero, follow this link: Taxes.Yes, Virginia, there was a time in American history -- some say the most prosperous time in American history -- when the income tax did not exist. Ron Paul's candidacy is not attractive to economic or historical illiterates. It's very sad that some people are so married to the establishment's welfare state they can't imagine a country in which individuals get to keep the fruits of their labor and do with them as they please!

Foreign Policy Illiteracy? Opposing Imperialism Is Not Isolationism
Again, Paul critics need to take the blinders off and open their mind.

Media Illiteracy or Downright Lies?  
U.S. Media Working With War Profiteering MIC & Politicians To Hype People Up For War
AP Story On Paul’s First Class Flights Debunked – AP Flat Out Lied
All is not what it seems.

Monetary Illiteracy? Fed to Weigh Further Easing Amid Doubts About Recovery
Let's pump up the money supply and goose the economy just in time for the November elections. This could be a January surprise. Hardly political insanity. However, QE3 would be an actual instance of monetary insanity, i.e., doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Political Illiteracy? Pat Buchanan on Ron Paul
Pat has always seemed the adult in the room.

Who Is John King, And Why Was He There Last Night?

We all know that Americans are stupid and illiterate. Obviously, the common good would be best served if important events like a presidential election could take place without the participation of crude and workaday Americans.

Still, the Constitution insists that the dolts have a right to vote. So be it. But do they have the right to speak? On national television, I mean? On precious air time provided pro bono by the public-service-minded media? Why must the rabble be allowed to participate at such an austere and learned event as a debate among presidential candidates?

I suppose it boils down to ratings. Everything does. Reality shows are all the rage and what makes a presidential campaign more real than honest-to-God questions from various Joe Blows? Still, allowing audience participation is a great risk. The public's attention span is notoriously short. Things can go downhill fast. So, last evening CNN's John King risked chaos and ridicule by allowing the masses to air two questions in prime time.

Tragedy was narrowly averted! The questions were barely intelligible. How fortunate Mr. King, a trained and respected journalist, was there to translate. This is, after all, why journalists exist and why Mr. King was at the debate last night: to translate plebeian gibberish into sensible, nuanced, political infighting.

Here, then, from last night's debate transcript, are the two questions followed by Mr. King's deft and real time translations:
QUESTION: My name is Sonny Cohen (ph). I'm from Sevier County, Tennessee. My question to any of the candidates is: Do any of you sincerely believe that Obamacare can either be repealed or reversed in its entirety?

KING: Let me go first to Governor Romney on that one.

Governor, you had said you would do it on day one with an executive order that would free the states up to opt out, waivers essentially to get out of that program. I know your friend, the South Carolina governor might like to have that option.

Help me understand as you do that how would it play out? And what happens to those, someone with a preexisting condition for example, who now has coverage under the president's health care plan, or a young American, 22, 23, 24, who because of the changes in the law, can now stay a few extra years on their parents' health care? What happens to them when you sign that executive order?

QUESTION: Hi. I would like to ask on the issue of amnesty of the illegal aliens, would you -- how would you secure that the American citizens would get -- keep the jobs in line first for them?

KING: Mr. Speaker, let's start with you on that. She mentioned the word "amnesty." You have explained your position in this campaign. And as you know, some conservatives have said, "No, Mr. Speaker, you say you can't deport maybe it's 10 million, 11 million, some people say as high as 20 million people illegally in this country. You say it's unrealistic to deport them all. So some would have to be given a path to legal status."

And as you know, many conservatives say, "No, that's amnesty, Mr. Speaker."
Many thanks to John King and his fellow, professional journalists! Imagine what life would be like without them. We'd be forced to think and speak for ourselves. Before long we'd perish from our own ignorance. Anarchy would reign supreme.

Sunday, January 15, 2012

Sunday With Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen: Character Building

Amen. God love you.

[Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen was an extremely popular figure in the early days of television. This program was broadcast in 1953. Wikipedia describes Sheen's popularity:
The show, scheduled in a graveyard slot on Tuesday nights at 8:00 p.m., was not expected to challenge the ratings giants Milton Berle and Frank Sinatra, but did surprisingly well. Berle joked, "He uses old material, too", and observed that "[i]f I'm going to be eased off the top by anyone, it's better that I lose to the One for whom Bishop Sheen is speaking."[5] Sheen responded in jest that people should start calling him "Uncle Fultie".[11]
That television in the fifties and sixties was different from television today goes without saying. Needless to add, America is different too.]

Saturday, January 14, 2012

Today's Political Discourse

I try to be objective and realistic in my analysis of political events. I have never, ever, experienced anything close to the intemperance of this President and his political lieutenants. Mr. Obama’s rhetoric is nothing less than poisonous. He recently called Republicans a threat to “the very core of what this country stands for.” I don’t know about you, but in my household that comment is not a mere insult, but an invitation to a brawl.

Jay Carney is about as truthful and straightforward as a carnival barker, twisting and shaping the truth into absurdities. Ms. Wasserman-Schultz has been the the political “hit man” for the Democratic Party since her appointment. Her caustic allegations are well-documented…on the internet.

The Future Of The "Republican" Party

Nobody — I mean nobody — knows what is going on in the heads of “Republicans.” I think this is true mainly because nobody truly knows what a “Republican” is nowadays.

There is a base of party people, the ones who run the offices, the websites, fund raise and throw corn roasts. These are the McCain people who are now Romney people. Beyond that base, nobody knows.

We may be witnessing a re-make of the “Republican” party. I recently changed my registration from

Bain Capital And Business Ethics

Let’s talk about ethics. Like it or not, business ethics are not absolute, they change from age to age. For example, 300 years ago children worked in factories in conditions we now consider deplorable. It was ethical to employ children then, given the extreme hardship and poverty of the times. Today, children do not have to work to survive. It would be unethical to hire them to work as they did 300 years ago. That said, I am certainly not contending that, within the context of the times, every action of the so-called Robber Barons was ethical.

Were the actions of Bain Capital unethical? All I can say with certainty is that cutting wages and dismissing employees in and of itself is not evidence of unethical conduct.

Friday, January 13, 2012

Doris Day (Back By Popular Demand)

I'm Confessin' That I love You 1929 (Music and Lyrics credited variously to Chris Smith, Sterling Grant, Al Neiburg, Doc Daugherty, and Ellis Reynolds. Go figure.

One cannot help watching this video and imagining Doris singing this beautiful tune into your ear. Then again, I truly believe I used to be a World War II fighter pilot flying the mighty Corsair with Pappy Boyington in the Solomons. But now I bet I've said too much.

Doris Day

I'm In The Mood For Love

Music: Jimmy McHugh; Lyrics: Dorothy Fields    1935

I don't know when Doris recorded this. I don't care. She's my favorite of all time.

THE TOP FIVE, Friday the 13th

CREEPING FASCISM AT HOME I'm from the government and I'm here to keep you safe.
Obama Administration Reportedly Plans to Create Internet ID for All Americans (Libertarian News)
Homeland Security Is Monitoring The Drudge Report, The New York Times (The Atlantic Wire)

Yeah, right!

From Reuters: U.S. military moves carriers, denies Iran link
The U.S. military said on Wednesday that a new aircraft carrier strike group had arrived in the Arabian Sea and that another was on its way to the region, but denied any link to recent tensions with Iran and portrayed the movements as routine.
Next we'll be told that Cruise Missiles landing in Iran is mere target practice.

Is it just me, or does anyone else suspect we've got a budding "Wag the Dog" situation developing here?

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Hey, Dumb Ass! Here's Why You Can't Find A Good Job!

Tax & Social Security as % of cost of employment

Yeah, I know the graph is about the European Union, not the United States! Yeah, I know it's running off the page and into the margins. Yeah, I know it's harder to understand than an episode of "Family Guy." Yeah, I know you already think it's part of some right wing conspiracy or a page from Ron Paul's campaign literature. Yeah, I know you've probably already clicked off this page and gone back to surfing the web for porn. It's why you're a dumb ass, know-it-all, closed-minded Democrat! Well, good riddance. You had to land on this page by mistake anyway.

Now, for the one or two of you who are still here, let's begin by giving proper credit where credit is due. I found this powerful and telling graph by following a link in this article by Michael Suede in the Libertarian News. That link lead me to this post by Jakab Andor.

Jakab Andor  is one angry Hungarian. He lives in a workers paradise, a European social democracy with the level of cradle-to-grave, government-provided economic and social welfare that Barack Obama dreams about.

10 Things You'll Never, Ever Hear Barack Obama Say!...

Monday of this week in a speech at a campaign event, President Obama said that what's "on the line" in the 2012 election is the "very core of what this country stands for." I propose that Mr. Obama does not know what the "core" principles of this country truly are.

Why would I say such a thing? Because Mr. Obama proceeded to tell us what he thought these core principles were. He said they are...

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

12 Things You'll Never, Ever Hear Mitt Romney Say!

1. "we are dangerous to the status quo of this country."

2. "And it’s only sound money and personal liberty that can solve the crisis that we have today."

3. "the monetary system...was a sneaky, deceitful way to pay the bills...an honest government that wants to be a big spending government would tax the people...if we had to pay taxes for everything...the people would rise up... So then they started borrowing money...and then people didn’t notice."

Mitt At His Best

Listen to this New Hampshire victory speech. No apparent notes or teleprompter. He's saying all the right things, but does he believe what he says? Can he keep his promises? How will he keep them?

A selected transcript of the speech is posted below the video. He certainly knows how to differentiate himself from Obama. Is this man the second coming of Ronald Reagan, or a complete phony?

You tell me.

Partial transcript of Romney's speech...

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Profits Create Jobs; Bureaucrats Destroy Them

Politicians are the only individuals who spend money with the specific purpose of creating jobs. No entrepreneur I know -- myself included -- ever invested a dime with the sole purpose in mind of creating jobs.

Believe it or not, jobs are created by accident by entrepreneurs whose primary purpose is to earn profits or to successfully embellish a personal passion. As a business becomes successful, profits allow the business to

Monday, January 9, 2012

Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, Two Sides Of The Same Coin

Transcript of Newt Gingrich's comments on "traditional capitalism" in an interview with NBC's Matt Lauer, from Real Clear Politics:

(Newt Gingrich) I think at some point Gov. Romney's going to have to hold a press conference and walk through, with considerable detail, some of the companies that Bain took over where they apparently looted the companies, left people unemployed and walked off with millions of dollars.

Look, I'm for capitalism. I'm for people who go in to save a company. I'm for people who take real risk. I'm for people who grow jobs, and I understand sometimes you fail. I've run four small businesses in the last decade. It gets tough out there. It doesn't always work. I get that. But if somebody comes in, takes all the money out of your company and then leaves you bankrupt while they go off with millions, that's not traditional capitalism.

Readers interested in the truth about "traditional capitalism," as it is practiced in this country, will find this article from Reuters extremely interesting: Special report: Romney's steel skeleton in the Bain closet.

The article is exactly what Dr. Newt ordered, a "walk through, with considerable detail," of Bain's takeover of a steel mill in Kansas City. Read the story more than once. It is a case study of capitalism at work, not free market capitalism by any stretch of the imagination, but crony capitalism as it exists in the United States. It's a

Sunday, January 8, 2012

And They Say Ron Paul Is Nuts!!!!

In last night's debate in New Hampshire, all the candidates told the voters what they would do with regard to the Middle East.

Rick Perry said: "I would send troops back into Iraq."

How nuts is that?!

Mitt Romney said: "I would bring our troops home [from Afghanistan] as soon as we possibly can." He said it three times, as if he thought it might make sense the more he said it.

How nuts is that?! It's like saying the check's in the mail. Does

Saturday, January 7, 2012

THE TOP FIVE (Recent News Items You May Have Missed)

Will Republicans Hand the Left a VAT Victory? - Mitt Romney won't rule out the possibility of imposing a tax that's the fast track to a European welfare state. (via Maggie's Farm) It's stories like this that will make it hard for me to vote for Mitt Romney under any circumstances. Will Romney enable what Obama and the Democrats couldn't do in a million years? Disgusting. 

A Warning from Canada for the GOP: Don’t Ignore the Grassroots (via Instapundit) Will history repeat itself? Canada had its version of Obama and Mitt Romney. The experience was not good, at least in the short run.



Rick Santorum's compassionate conservatism (from The Seattle Times) "We have met the enemy and he is us." (Or something like that.) Is Santorum the second coming of George W. Bush? This opinion peace is deja vu all over again. It sort of sounds like Santorum wants to install the Christian version of sharia law...or maybe it's just me.



Fun and games in our future?




Related Old News: Asymmetry at Sea What war with Iran in the Gulf could be like, from (The Atlantic) The quote to remember:

"Some of the promoters of a strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities have sold the strike as a high-tech, airborne surgical attack. But a look at the naval environment indicates that like the Iraq invasion, what starts surgically could end very messily indeed."

Sunday, January 1, 2012

I Don't Want To Own No Damn Dairy Cow in 2012!

I enjoy reading theCL Report at the Classic Liberal blog. The links are fun and informative.

However, theCL Report of December 30, 2011 contained this link to Mother Earth News: Start a 1-Acre, Self-Sufficient Homestead. In the article, the author suggested owning a single dairy cow.

Is this what life in America has come to?

I've lived over six decades in this great country. I grew up as a boy thinking I could be and do whatever I put