Let's Face It: George Clooney Is Just Dim; YOU And I Are The Absolute Morons

This is George Clooney.

George Clooney is a popular, Hollywood actor, producer and writer. His net worth is reported to be $160-million.

Good for George. I respect an individual's success in the free market.

George Clooney is also a social activist. He advocates for gay rights. He wants "to stop and prevent mass atrocities" throughout the world, most especially in the Sudan and in Darfur.

Good for George. It's a free country. I'm against mass atrocities too.

George Clooney is also a political activist. He is wildly progressive and liberal. He supported Barack Obama in 2008 and is working to reelect Barack Obama in 2012. Both in 2008 and in 2012 he donated the maximum amounts allowed by the law to Obama's campaigns. He has also donated in-kind services to Obama, such as the use of his house. He is regularly pictured in the news media in conference with President Obama. Apparently, his donations have captured the President's ear. Just the other day he raised $15-million for Obama's campaign through one PAC or another. He's probably raised two or three times that amount for Obama and leftist PAC's in the last six years.

Bad for George. This is how we know he is "dim." But it's still a free country, even for dim bulbs.

These are Republicans, sitting in convention in 2008. They oppose Obama's politics, his social and economic policies and virtually everything he stands for and has done as President. They want with all their hearts to defeat Obama in 2012. They raise and donate millions to defeat the President.

Everyday I read political blogs written by committed conservatives who despise progressive/liberal/leftist social and economic policies. I am also such a blogger. My fellow bloggers and I would give our eye teeth to defeat Obama in 2012. Many of us also donate our hard-earned cash to that effort.

Last year George Clooney produced, directed, wrote and starred in a film called: The Ides of March. Ironically, in the film Clooney plays a naive political idealist who is disillusioned when the Presidential candidate he's working for turns out to be a pompous, lying, hypocritical, backstabbing, demagogic, political whore. The film grossed about $41-million dollars (USA) for Clooney and friends. Also last year Clooney starred in a film called: The Descendents. That film grossed about $83-million (USA). 

$124-million for two films. Not bad. I saw both films. They were very bad. Tickets for my wife and I cost me about $40. I figure in the last 10 years I've spent maybe $300-$400 bucks on films George Clooney had a hand in making. My wife's probably spent two or three times that much!

Clooney is a popular Hollywood figure. I assume many, many of my Republican and conservative friends and bloggers have contributed similar amounts to Clooney's Hollywood empire over the years. Be honest, folks. Republicans and conservatives go to movies too!

What are we thinking? By day we rail against Obama's reelection with heartfelt and intelligent rants. By night we stupidly give our hard-earned cash to George Clooney, so he can, in turn, give it to Obama's reelection campaign!


Folks, this is YOU and ME...

 Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy, p. 9–10:

It is not the Hollywood film corporation that pays the wages of a movie star; it is the people who pay admission to the movies. And it is not the entrepreneurs of a boxing match who pay the enormous demands of the prize fighters; it is the people who pay admission to the fight.

Gary Johnson Candidacy Will Help Elect Mitt Romney!

An interesting take on Gary Johnson's third party run: Gary Johnson: finally a Libertarian who will actually help a Republican candidate.

The "Coach" writes:

Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson’s presence in this year’s race has the potential to be a real plus in the battle to unseat Barack Obama.

Some Democrat voters might not like Obama but would have real problems voting for a Republican.  Johnson solves their problem. 

His positions make him attractive to Democrats but repulsive to all but the most ardent Mitt Romney haters – most of whom would likely stay home rather than vote for Johnson whom they will see as “Romney-lite.”

"Romney-lite?" I don't quite understand that. As I see it, the bottom line for the "Coach" is: if you're a pissed off Republican, hold your nose and vote for Romney. If you're a pissed off Democrat, vote Johnson. If you're a libertarian, you've never voted Republican anyway, so Romney won't miss your vote.

Make sense? 

No Laughing Matter

The other night Maximum Leader played stand-up comedian at the White House Correspondents' dinner. All good fun, right?

Wrong!

Actually this kind of thing turns my stomach. These black tie affairs in which celebrities mingle with the parasite-in-chief always remind me of the gap between the American royalty in Washington and everyday Americans slaving away in flyover country.

At the dinner Maxie said:

Anyway, it’s great to be here this evening in the vast, magnificent Hilton ballroom — or what Mitt Romney would call a little fixer-upper. (Laughter and applause.) I mean, look at this party. We’ve got men in tuxes, women in gowns, fine wine, first-class entertainment. I was just relieved to learn this was not a GSA conference. (Laughter.) Unbelievable. Not even the mind reader knew what they were thinking. (Laughter.) [emphasis mine]

For the uninformed, the infamous "GSA conference" took place in Las Vegas in 2010. Fox Business describes it as follows:

The government agency, which oversees federal real estate, is now under fire for wasting more than $822,000 in taxpayer money on a lavish conference in 2010 at a luxury resort in Las Vegas for 300 federal workers that included penthouse suites, a mind reader, a clown, a bicycle training exercise, and expensive catering -- spending that was mocked by the GSA’s own workers in videos.

I don't mind the President of the United States making a fool out of himself in front of a bunch of star-struck correspondents. I DO mind Maximum Leader making a fool out of me and all the rest of us American taxpayers.

I took that joke personally, Mr. Maxie!

What the GSA did in Las Vegas was a travesty, a slap in the face to every taxpaying American. The Washington parasites keep sucking the life out of hardworking Americans by demanding more and more tribute. They say they need the extra tax money for urgent and important needs to serve the common good. They say there is no room for responsible spending cuts. And then the employees they are charged to supervise party away the money they are charged to protect and care for...And Maximum Leader thinks the whole thing is funny enough to mock with a bad joke!

My mother used to tell me that some things are no laughing matter. Well, the joke's on you, Mr. Maximum Leader. As I pull the lever in November for your opponent I will think about your line at the correspondents' dinner and I'll enjoy the last laugh!

I hope a huge majority of American voters do the same!

"not a point of view but virtue itself"

Melanie Phillips is a brilliant, intellectually honest, British journalist and author. I've been following her blog for years. Being British and middle age, Ms. Phillips has a unique perspective. She's experienced the Left's conquest of Britain. She recognizes what is happening and about to happen in the United States. She writes about it rationally and analytically.

Today Ms. Phillips published an article on her website titled "The New Intolerance." The article is worth reading in its entirety. It cogently describes the "war of religion" which is currently raging in both Britain and the United States. The article expertly dissects this war and lays bare its philosophical and psychological roots. What I found especially revealing was her description of the individuals who are waging this war. Of course, I am referring to those on the philosophical Left.

Ms. Phillips writes:

Medieval Christianity — like contemporary Islamism — stamped out dissent by killing or conversion; Western liberals do it by social and professional ostracism and legal discrimination. It is a kind of secular Inquisition. And the grand inquisitors are to be found within the intelligentsia — the universities, the media, the law and the political and professional classes — who not only have systematically undermined the foundations of Western society but are heavily engaged in attempting to suppress any challenge or protest.

It is hard to overstate the influence of these left-wing doctrines on our culture. They form the unchallengeable orthodoxy within academia, from which base-camp they have set forth on their "long march through the institutions" which they have colonised with stunning success. They have managed, furthermore, to shift the centre of political gravity so that anyone who does not share these values is defined as extreme.

For the Left believes that its secular, materialistic, individualistic and utilitarian values represent not a point of view but virtue itself. No decent person can therefore oppose them. Anyone who does so is automatically "right-wing". In fact, such opponents may have no ideological position. But the Left cannot acknowledge such a possibility. In Manichean fashion it divides the world into two opposing and exclusive camps, good and evil; and so it creates as the sole alternative to itself a demonic political camp, to which everyone who challenges it is automatically consigned. Since anything that is not the Left is therefore "the Right", and since "the Right" is by definition evil, to challenge any left-wing shibboleth is to be labelled "right-wing" and put oneself totally beyond the moral pale.

So there can be no dissent or argument at all. Only one world-view is to be permitted and all other views are to be suppressed or destroyed. And because all that is evil is "right-wing" and all that is "right-wing" is evil, anyone who supports Israel or the Americans in Iraq, is sceptical of anthropogenic global warming, opposes multiculturalism or utilitarianism, supports capitalism or is a believing Christian is not only evil but also "right-wing". [Emphasis mine]

Ms. Phillips has put her finger on an issue that has troubled me for quite some time: Why are leftists and progressives so intransigent in their beliefs even when they are presented with a logical argument or empirical evidence that exposes the absurdity of their position?

We've all seen it. We've all experienced it. Gone are the days in academia or in polite society when logic and evidence hold sway in an argument and those with intellectual integrity recognize their error and accept the truth. Leftists today barely engage anymore in argument. When presented with one, they respond with timeworn and disproved memes. When the memes are challenged, they are likely to immediately respond with an arrogant indifference and, if pressed, with an ad hominem attack. I could never quite understand this nasty habit.

Yesterday, Erick Erickson at Redstate posted an article called "The Second Coming of American Liberal Fascism?" The article describes what happens when leftists gain political power. They no longer have to bother with making ad hominem attacks on their opponents because they have beaten their opponents, not by force of reason, but by the political force of majority rule. So they become righteous and absolutely intolerant of dissent. They ostracize those who persist in dissent and even imprison them. Erickson points out that this is not new. It's happened before in the era of Woodrow Wilson's presidency.

Melanie Phillips explains the nature of this vicious behavior. Leftist ideology is not a political idea but a belief, as religion is a belief. Leftists are exactly the same as medieval Christians and modern day Islamists: There mission is to stamp out evil, i.e., opposing opinion, by any means possible. Forced conversion of the evil dissenters or killing them is impossible in polite society, so leftists resort to the next most effective means, coerced participation, enforced silence or imprisonment.

Politics in America today is no longer a sport in which both sides agree to engage in friendly governance once the election is over. Politics today is a blood sport. The stakes are high. Not only are the livelihoods of politicians threatened by an adverse, electoral outcome, but individuals on the losing political side are at risk of being literally and legally pillaged and plundered or incarcerated for their dissent. Principles upon which this country was founded are at stake in our modern elections, principles like the rule of law, individual liberty and private property. Modern day politics has literally become a life and death proposition.

This is what so many who are immersed in politics today do not understand. They view politics as a panacea. They naively expect their political opponents to graciously concede political defeat and work with them in the future in common cause. They expect all will be well and good provided the right candidate -- the wise and conciliatory leader -- is elected to office. This was possible in times past when political differences were honest and principled, when political argument turned upon alternate means to attain the same end. Today, most on the left do not share the goals of their political opponents. They consider politics a war in which the spoils belong to the victors and in which the defeated have no rights at all.

The truth is that a society that relies on this kind of politics to resolve disputes cannot long survive. The end game will not be pretty.

The only peaceful means I see of preserving our Constitutional republic is to turn over the rock under which these vermin on the left and the right are hiding. That rock is an ideology that is impervious to logic and evidence. As Ms. Phillips suggests, the left-wing especially has taken cover under an "unchallengeable orthodoxy within academia," which shelters it from truth. The solution is to speak that truth relentlessly and fearlessly, and to remind these vermin of the fate that awaits them should they not discard their anti-cooperative religious ideology.

The other day legal expert Professor Alan Dershowitz appeared on the Glenn Beck show. Prof. Dershowitz and Mr. Beck represent opposite sides of the political spectrum. Prof. Dershowitz is a moderate leftist. Despite his political ideology, Prof. Dershowitz courageously stood up against the left's demagoguery of the Trayvon Martin murder case in Florida.

All rational people recognize that it was their ideology that drove leftists, like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Rep. Bobby Rush, President Obama and others to rush to judgement in this unfortunate incident. They were quick to accuse Mr. Martin's admitted killer, George Zimmerman, of "racism." They made the accusation comfortably and forcefully before hardly any evidence had come to light. The leftist media mindlessly publicized their accusations. The Florida prosecutors, apparently, knuckled under to public pressure and produced charges against Mr. Zimmerman that the evidence does not support. Prof. Dershowitz condemned the prosecutor's action as "unethical" and possibly "criminal." He calmly explained the legal principles involved and how the prosecution had violated them.

This is the way to crack the dome of orthodox ideology that protects the left. Not only did Prof. Dershowitz expose that orthodoxy for what it is, he courageously disavowed it by his appearance on Beck's program.

It's useless to argue with leftists. Our job is not to persuade them by means of logic and evidence. Such a thing is impossible. Our mission should be to expose them as fervent ideologues and challenge those among them who have any remnant of intellectual honesty and integrity to disavow their cultish belief system.

As I said, if these ideologues persist in their quest for dominating power, the consequences will not be pretty. Their victims will eventually act to defend themselves and the fundamental principles that enable a cooperative society to exist in the first place. 

     

Events May Determine Obama's Fate

There are eight full months between now and the November, 2012 elections.  A lot can happen between now and then, some good, some bad, when considered from the prospective of the President's reelection. The crazy thing is that these events take on a life of their own. The consequences could be devastating one way or the other. In many respects, it doesn't matter who the Republicans nominate. This is why I find it difficult to take politics too seriously at the moment.

EVENTS THAT COULD ASSURE OBAMA OF A SECOND TERM

1. A Well-Timed QE3  Nothing is more important in a Presidential election year than the state of the economy. And nothing has more influence on the economy than the actions of the Federal Reserve. FED Chairman Ben Bernanke released a trial balloon this weak hinting that the FED may have to engage in another round of pump priming. A well-timed, massive injection of new money into the financial system could give the economy a boost that would resemble a substantial and permanent recovery. Stocks would take off significantly. Employers would be quoted as thinking about hiring again, or delaying layoffs, especially in the financial industry and among government contractors.

The intervention would have to be massive. A corresponding jump in price inflation would be the natural consequence. However, if the Fed intervened in June, the consumer wouldn't feel the pinch in prices until after the election. It wouldn't be the first time a well-timed Fed intervention affected the outcome of a Presidential election. Whether there is collusion between the Fed and the White House is another question altogether.

2. A Well-Timed National Emergency  What kind of emergency? Your guess is as good as mine. Maybe a war with Iran that is precipitated by Israel. The President could say he did all he could to prevent such a war, but Israel's action left the US no choice but to become involved.

Another possibility is a terrorist attack on the US, or Chinese adventurism in the Far East. Who knows. The possibilities are endless. Fear and patriotism have swayed elections in the past.

Summary  Both of these events carry with them an "I got Bin Laden!" opportunity for the President. Mr. Obama is not shy about claiming credit where credit is not due. A faux-economic recovery or a swift and decisive intervention by the American military or first responders would be easy pickings for the President and the mainstream media who are essentially shills for the incumbent.

EVENTS THAT COULD SWING THE TIDE AGAINST OBAMA

1. New Taxes Sink The Economy To A New Low   In 30 days the US will Have The World's Highest Corporate Tax Rate. Moreover, at the end of December, 2012 the Bush Tax Cuts are set to expire. Too late to affect the economy before the election? Hardly. Ending or extending the Bush Tax Cuts are likely to be a huge election issue. The Democrats will demagog while the market places its bets. The end result will be an anchor on the economy. In the meantime, key new Obamacare taxes are set to kick in at about the same time. Business owners will continue to sit on their hands and the medical industry will anticipate them. This all adds up to another economic anchor weighing down Mr. Obama.

2. The Birth Certificate Controversy May Explode  This week Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona’s Maricopa County released a report that "concluded there is probable cause that the document released by the White House last year as President Obama’s birth certificate is a computer-generated forgery." Arpaio's efforts will continue. Moreover, there are a handful of "birthers" around the country who won't let this issue go unchallenged in the courts. Who knows? Arpaio or an obscure federal judge somewhere might just spell Obama's Waterloo. Stranger things have happened.

3. Obama's Elusive Paper Trail May Catch Up With Him  Reportedly, the late Andrew Breitbart "was set to release damning video footage that could have sunk Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign." Breitbart's compatriots have promised the videos will be released shortly. If the videos show conclusively that Mr. Obama was well-acquainted with terrorist radicals William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn and not merely "neighbors" who barely knew each other (as the President has said), the President and his cronies will have to do some fast talking. The damage is sure to be palpable.

Moreover, these things have a tendency to snowball. Perhaps someone somewhere has access to the President's college writings or knowledge of some damning associations or activities in Obama's hidden past. Who knows what information may come back to bite the President.

4. The Truth About Bin Laden's Death May Surface  Unlike the issues above, about which I continue to remain skeptical, I'm convinced there is something very fishy about Bin Laden's assassination and burial at sea. So far the media has bought the official administration story hook, line and sinker. However, the facts suggest questions that have never been asked, much less answered. No administration in history would have been given such a huge benefit of the doubt.

Think about it. The purported mastermind of the most deadly terrorist attack on US soil, the alleged head man of Al Qaeda, America's enemy number one in the ten year old "War on Terror," one of the reasons used to justify the invasion of Iraq, the sole reason Americans have been dying in Afghanistan for ten years -- this diabolical enemy is killed by an elite Navy Seal team, his body is hurriedly evacuated, and is immediately buried at sea in order to comply with the rites of Islam.

No pictures. No autopsy. No nothing. Some on the left believe the Bush administration masterminded the attack on the World Trade Center and then covered it up. If it is possible for a Presidential administration to do that, it is possible for a Presidential administration to fake Bin Laden's demise for political benefit.

Andrew Breitbart won't break this story. There is no "Woodward and Bernstein" in today's media. But somewhere someone just might come clean and sink Mr. Obama's bid for a second term.

5. "Fast and Furious" and Solyndra: Obama's Watergate?  Time is getting short, but these are two more events that may blow up in the President's face. They fail the smell test. All that is required is someone somewhere to turn over the right rock and expose the roaches. Unlikely, but still possible. And potentially fatal.

Summary  Are all of the above mere pie-in-the-sky conspiracy theories? Do any of these events have a snowball's chance in hell of ever materializing in the real world?

Mr. Obama has the media in his pocket. He gets away with blatant hypocrisy and absurdity. He blamed Bush for rising gas prices but denies blame for skyrocketing gas prices during his watch. With a straight face, he proposed "algae" has his solution to the nation's energy problems. His Press Secretary, Jay Carney, lies with impunity. Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, numerous Democrats in the Senate and the House, not to mention leftist talk radio hosts, make absolutely partisan, absurd and foolish pronouncements with nary a peep reported in the mainstream media. Joe Biden said the Taliban is not our enemy, for god sakes! Carney defended him. And still nothing in the press.

All this doesn't bode well for the game-changing events happening as I've speculated. Still, I wouldn't bet against them. Not in this day and age.

Romney Vs The "Sluggish Masses"

Let's face it. The American voter is possessed of an anti-capitalist mentality.

Among those on the left, this biased mindset against capitalism is obvious. However, even everyday individuals -- the infamous middle class, independent American voters -- are suspicious of capitalism and capitalists. The prevailing viewpoint is that capitalism is inherently immoral and must be bridled by government lest greed and ruthless profiteering impoverish us all. Even some "conservatives" regard capitalism as a necessary evil, a wondrous horn of plenty that supplies us all with prosperity provided its baser instincts are held in check by stern, Christian moral codes, again, enforced by government.

Ludwig von Mises wrote extensively about this in his book The Anti-Capitalist Mentality. As Mises explains it, the anti-capitalist bias stems in large part from ignorance of economics. The average American, whether blue collar, white collar or even an entrepreneur, does not understand the crucial role that free market economics and capital accumulation play in creating prosperity.

Mises writes:

The emergence of economics as a new branch of knowledge was one of the most portentous events in the history of mankind. In paving the way for private capitalistic enterprise it transformed within a few generations all human affairs more radically than the preceding ten thousand years had done. From the day of their birth to the day of their demise, the denizens of a capitalistic country are every minute benefited by the marvelous achievements of the capitalistic ways of thinking and acting.

The most amazing thing concerning the unprecedented change in earthly conditions brought about by capitalism is the fact that it was accomplished by a small number of authors and a hardly greater number of statesmen who had assimilated their teachings. Not only the sluggish masses but also most of the businessmen who, by their trading, made the laissez-faire principles effective failed to comprehend the essential features of their operation. Even in the heyday of liberalism only a few people had a full grasp of the functioning of the market economy. Western civilization adopted capitalism upon recommendation on the part of a small élite.

And:

The terms capitalism, capital, and capitalists were em­ployed by Marx and are today employed by most people—also by the official propaganda agencies of the United States government—with an opprobrious connotation. Yet these words pertinently point toward the main factor whose operation produced all the marvelous achievements of the last two hundred years: the unprecedented improvement of the average standard of living for a continually increasing population. What distinguishes modern industrial conditions in the capitalistic countries from those of the precapitalistic ages as well as from those prevailing today in the so‑called underdeveloped countries is the amount of the supply of capital. No technological improvement can be put to work if the capital required has not previously been accumulated by saving.

Saving—capital accumulation—is the agency that has transformed step by step the awkward search for food on the part of savage cave dwellers into the modern ways of industry. The pacemakers of this evolution were the ideas that created the institutional framework within which capital accumula­tion was rendered safe by the principle of private ownership of the means of production. Every step forward on the way toward prosperity is the effect of saving. The most ingenious technological inventions would be practically useless if the capital goods required for their utilization had not been accumulated by saving.

Mises also reminds us that capitalism -- the private ownership of the means of production -- would be impossible without the societal institutions of equality under the law and private property. When property became sacrosanct all individuals could save, could accumulate capital, without fear that those savings would be seized by the king. Ironically, these very principles of equality under the law and private property are under attack today in the United States. As these attacks succeed, the result is diminished incentive to save, capital consumption and an inexorable tendency towards general impoverishment.

In America today the "rich" are treated differently under the law than other Americans. Their income is taxed at confiscatory rates. The government yearns to tax their income off of savings and investments at confiscatory rates as well. Generally, the American public supports the government's yearning. In this country "rich" is a four letter word. The average American only respects capitalists like Warren Buffet who are guilty about their success and are willing to selflessly share it with their secretaries. On the other hand, the public despises retired, capitalist robber barons like Mitt Romney who live in luxury by doing "nothing," i.e., cashing interest and dividend checks. The public never realizes that it is savings and investments that provide the capital which results in its own prosperity. The doltish public doesn't understand that if each "rich" man held all of his savings in his wall safe instead of in stocks and bonds, we would all be the poorer for it.

Setting aside economics, Mises also explored the psychological basis of this American anti-capitalist mentality. He recognized that in our competitive capitalistic society the bias against capitalism is rooted in envy, humiliation and the fear of failure.

It is quite another thing under capitalism. Here everybody’s station in life depends on his own doing. Everybody whose ambitions have not been fully gratified knows very well that he has missed chances, that he has been tried and found wanting by his fellowman. If his wife upbraids him: “Why do you make only eighty dollars a week? If you were as smart as your former pal, Paul, you would be a foreman and I would enjoy a better life,” he becomes conscious of his own inferiority and feels humiliated.

The much talked about sternness of capitalism consists in the fact that it handles everybody according to his contribution to the well-being of his fellowmen. The sway of the principle, to each according to his accomplishments, does not allow of any excuse for personal shortcomings. Everybody knows very well that there are people like himself who succeeded where he himself failed. Everybody knows that many of those whom he envies are self-made men who started from the same point from which he himself started. And, much worse, he knows that all other people know it too. He reads in the eyes of his wife and his children the silent reproach: “Why have you not been smarter?” He sees how people admire those who have been more successful than he and look with contempt or with pity on his failure.

What makes many feel unhappy under capitalism is the fact that capitalism grants to each the opportunity to attain the most desirable positions which, of course, can only be attained by a few. Whatever a man may have gained for himself, it is mostly a mere fraction of what his ambition has impelled him to win. There are always before his eyes people who have succeeded where he failed. There are fellows who have outstripped him and against whom he nurtures, in his subconsciousness, inferiority complexes. Such is the attitude of the tramp against the man with a regular job, the factory hand against the foreman, the executive against the vice-president, the vice-president against the company’s president, the man who is worth three hundred thou-sand dollars against the millionaire and so on. Everybody’s self-reliance and moral equilibrium are undermined by the spectacle of those who have given proof of greater abilities and capacities. Everybody is aware of his own defeat and insufficiency.

Mitt Romney is a very rich, artistocratic man running for President. As a result, Mitt is at a severe disadvantage: the average American voter hates his guts. But Romney is far from an innocent victim of this unreasonable hatred. He faces an additional problem of his own creation: his aristocratic lifestyle. Mises describes this problem as follows:

If a group of people secludes itself from the rest of the nation, especially also from its intellectual leaders, in the way American “socialites” do, they unavoidably become the target of rather hostile criticisms on the part of those whom they keep out of their own circles. The exclusivism practiced by the American rich has made them in a certain sense outcasts. They may take a vain pride in their own distinction. What they fail to see is that their self-chosen segregation isolates them and kindles animosities which make the intellectuals inclined to favor anti-capitalistic policies.

Average Americans rightly despise aristocrats. Many immigrants came to America to escape the rigid European system of caste and class. They yearned for a socioeconomic system wherein wealth was earned instead of inherited, and success was based on achievement rather than bloodlines and state favoritism.

The problem is our American aristocracy has become tainted by the stench of caste and class as well. We can no longer assume that the "rich" in this country came by their wealth honestly. A good many American aristocrats became "rich" solely because of political favoritism. These individuals are not free market capitalists in the Misean sense. They are merely cronies of big government, the favored recipients of governmental subsidies, grants, protective rules, regulations and legal status. Many are tagged with the special governmental imprimatur of "too big to fail."

How many bankers and Wall Street financiers are "rich" because of their free market prowess? How many are "rich" because of their incestuous relationship with Washington power?

Once these individuals become "rich" they choose to ensconce themselves with their "rich" brethren, far removed from the great unwashed. They hole up in huge mansions in gated enclaves of high society and ostentation. Rightly or wrongly, the public regards all the residents of such enclaves as the privileged aristocracy.

This is the problem Mitt Romney faces when he attempts to portray himself as one of us. The truth is, he is not one of us. He has never been one of us. And by his own chosen lifestyle, he has exiled himself from us.

Whether Mitt Romney is an honest capitalist or a dishonest crony aristocrat is almost beside the point. The fact is he is wealthy and an ex-capitalist living in the lap luxury. That is enough for many of the anti-capitalist mentality to vote against him. Moreover, over his lifetime he has chosen to disavow the very individual on whom his political future now depends: the ordinary, middle class, American slug.

All I can say is: Good luck with that, Mitt.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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."

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