“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss,” so sings Roger Daltrey of the Who in the classic rock song “We Won’t Get Fooled Again.” He could have just as easily been singing about one of today’s worst psychological abuses- the Global Warming hysteria propagated by radical environmentalists like Al Gore.
Last Saturday, Gore presented the musical event “Live Earth” to raise awareness about Global Warming. Over 100 artists performed on stages on seven continents during a 24 hour period designed to help “save the planet!” Among the suggestions for keeping Mother Earth alive were: unplugging unused appliances and changing to low-energy light bulbs.
When Daltrey was asked what he thought of the project, he replied, “Bollucks, the last thing the planet needs is a rock concert.” But he wasn’t the only one suggesting “the emperor has no clothes!”
Matt Helders of Artic Monkeys said, “it’s a bit patronizing for us 21 year olds to try to start to change the world. It’s like, who cares what we think about what’s happening, especially when were using enough power for 10 houses just for [stage] lighting. It’s a bit hypocritical.”
Neil Tennant of the Pet Shop Boys explained, “I’ve always been against the idea of rock stars lecturing people as if they know something the rest of us don’t- it looks arrogant.”
Bob Geldof, musician and concert organizer for previous relief projects: “Live Aid” and “Live 8,” was skeptical of the motives behind the event. “Why is Gore actually organizing them?”
Such criticisms weren’t reserved to those opting out of the event. Live Earth-participant Chris Rock sarcastically commented, “I pray this event ends Global Warming the same way that Live Aid ended world hunger.”
Still, artists like Madonna and Carlo Santone shouted to the crowds, “start a revolution,
it’s a revolution, do it, do it!”
Madonna- it’s interesting to note- with nine houses, a fleet of cars and a private jet, has a “carbon footprint” a hundred times larger than the average person. She also owns stock
in several companies considered to be among the world’s worst polluters: Alcoa, Ford Motor Co. and Weyerhaeuser. But, hypocrisy can’t be too bad of a thing when the organizer himself is perhaps the biggest hypocrite of all.
Al and Tipper Gore own three houses, and although alternative energy is available to them, they don’t use it. Their 10,000 sq. ft. home in Nashville has 20 rooms and 8 bathrooms; and, according to the Nashville Electric Service, (NES), they use more electricity in a month than the average household does in a year! And furthermore, incredibly, Gore’s zinc mine in Carthage, TN has been cited by the State for polluting the Caney Fork River. The symbolic “S.O.S.” signal Live Earth participants were sending out with their various drumming and handclapping in London, Tokyo and New Jersey should have been directed toward Al Gore’s own backyard!
The truth is- the earth may be warming some. Estimates suggest the temperature rise has been approximately one degree Fahrenheit over the last hundred years, but this is a far cry from “the catastrophic nightmare” that some would have us believe. The earth has periodically warmed and cooled in the past without disastrous consequences. Six thousand years ago it was 5 degrees warmer. Ten thousand years ago the temperature rose 10 degrees in one decade as we came out of a cold spell.
Professor Reed Bryson of the University of Wisconsin is known as “the father of scientific climatology.” He says Gore’s apocalyptic vision is “not science” and “not true.” Bryson knows a little about the topic since he was the founding chairman of the department of meteorology at UW-Madison. He says we’ve “been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years,” but “there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide.”
The warming of the globe has actually leveled off since the 90s. Greenland and the polar ice caps are not in the process of melting away. According to professor Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen, drilling has revealed that 120,000 years ago, when the earth was 9 degrees warmer, Greenland was still covered with ice.
So why does this nonsense continue? Simply put, it’s a power play for more, centralized
government control over the world.
Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic recently surmised, “as someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.”
As if to illustrate this point, Dem. Gov. of New Jersey, Jon Corzine, just signed into law the first U.S. state mandate to reduce greenhouse emissions. The NJ Business and Industrial Association oppose it and the Utility managers say it will bring higher prices.
In the U.S. Congress, Dem. John Dingle, House Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, has just announced his plans to introduce a new carbon tax.
Both of these measures are similar to European Union (EU) laws governing energy. It’s curious how these programs are now being criticized in Europe for failing to actually reduce carbon emissions and for breeding corruption in allowing companies to “game the rules” for their benefit!
Oh well, the Pussycat Dolls did announce after their performance that they will be cutting back on their hairspray volume. I guess I’ll just pick-up my guitar and play…just like yesterday. (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to P.O. Box 114, Jacksboro,TN 37757)
Monday, July 9, 2007
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Prosperity Depends Upon Competition
Fred Thompson, the soon to be announced candidate for President, once said, “you can’t tax your way to prosperity.” That’s generally a true statement, but there are some folks who prosper pretty well as a result of taxes. Naturally, politicians, bureaucrats and government-directed beneficiaries love taxes, but did you know that Big Business also prospers from high taxes?
The Tennessee State Legislature recently passed a new tax on tobacco. The bill raises the tax on a pack of cigarettes 220%, from 20 cents to 62 cents. It’s still below the national average of 80 cents, but why in the world would our representatives in Nashville be raising any taxes at all when we’re experiencing a $300 million state surplus? The answer could be: there are prosperous advantages to be obtained by both Big Government and Big Tobacco.
In a new book written by Timothy Carney, “The Big Ripoff: How Big Business and Big Government Steal Your Money,” the deceptively clever stratagem is revealed.
The name of the game is Monopoly. Centralizing power and control enables the “Royal Elites” in both our economy and our government to prosper. By eliminating the competition through government-created obstacles like taxes and regulations, Big Business- who can withstand such obstacles- obtains a greater market share for itself.
But, what do government officials receive for going to the trouble of instituting such state-sponsored franchises, or “syndicates?”
It’s been said that money is the mother’s milk of politics. Politicians are always in need of more cash. The 2008 presidential race will likely be the first billion dollar campaign in history. Top candidates are facing the proposition of raising a quarter of a million dollars a day! Even local races are getting expensive. A small district seat in the Tennessee Legislature will run you about six figures today. This system of campaign finance and lobbying is nothing new, but increasingly, our government seems to be “for sale” to the highest bidder. But, how is it that those bidding the highest amounts are curiously the very ones who would SEEM to suffer the most from the political results they are buying?
One of the biggest lies ever produced is the populist idealism underlying Socialism. Socialism began as a Big Business ruse in the 19th century and continues to this day as a monumental ploy to enrich those already rich while creating the impression that its purposes are all for the benefit of the poor and “the working class.”
“Old Money” Industrialists discovered a way in the late 1800s to begin engineering government regulations that were ultimately favorable to their monopolistic concerns. The preferential allowances these “Malefactors of Great Wealth” wanted to create presupposed the existence of certain established restrictions. Therefore, they arrived at a simple solution- first erect government restrictions, then bribe the authorities for granted allowances that could be exploited for competitive advantage. So, these allowances permitted by the power of law, helped “rig the game” with exclusive privileges that resulted in protecting the profits of Big Business. It’s a massive con game of loopholes, backroom deals and special exemptions all aimed at destroying fair competition.
So, why do they consider competition so bad? Competition means never slowing down and never resting from having to earn the customer’s business. John D. Rockefeller famously remarked, “competition is a sin.” He, like other power-brokers, resented the constant and humble service that’s required to maintain market share in an open and free environment.
Naturally, Big Business couldn’t overtly dictate their desires within the traditional, capitalist framework- so they got government to do it for them via the ingenious construct of Socialism. Big Business and Big Government were presented to the people as mortal enemies, but the Robber Barons and Politicians remained very cozy behind the scenes- carving up the economic pie like Mafia Godfathers.
As Carney points out in his book, Philip Morris lobbies for more regulation over tobacco because they know the resulting policies will hurt their small competitors the most! Raising the price of cigarettes can benefit Big Tobacco in a number of ways. It enhances the underground, smuggler’s market that they control with certain government acquiescence around the world. In addition, the higher price makes the “cheap” cigarette brands “cheap” only in content, and thus, less preferred. The lucrative duty-free market, is another instance, where it becomes more profitable for the name brands when taxes go up. Also, the tax increase creates a convenient “pay off” opportunity to the politicians who get their hands on more money to buy votes and fund campaign war chests. A well-paid politician then becomes a more faithful and pliable commodity for future purposes of fine-tuning “the game.”
The so-called “war on tobacco” is another example of this “now you see it, now you don’t” skullduggery. What this charade amounts to is a sophisticated racket for the prosperity of trial lawyers and Philip Morris.
The losers in this game are: taxpayers, consumers, less established businesses and small entrepreneurial competitors who create the most new wealth and jobs in our economy. The majority of the people- who operate without these inside connections- wind-up paying more and receiving less as a natural result of the inherent inefficiencies of a more centralized and monopolized economy. Once someone is free from competition and no longer has to “earn” the customer’s dollar fairly - the quality necessarily goes down.
Carney points out other examples: Big Oil actually profits from Environmental Laws; Enron- who is still receiving tax subsidies by the way- worked to keep laissez-faire officials off the commission that regulates the energy industry; Liberal Democrat Sen. Charles Schumer receives more contributions from Wall Street than any other senator; Warren Buffett is an advocate for higher Estate Taxes; and finally, KYOTO- the international environmental treaty restricting industry- is favored by most multi-national corporations.
Prosperity, ultimately, should be defined by what’s best for the people. Working a scam of higher taxes and more regulation that enable the wealthiest members of our society to escape the discipline of the market place- is NOT a prosperous philosophy with populist benefits. On the contrary, it’s a deception that will lead to greater bondage. We must one day free our minds of this mirage, or else, we will never be able to free our pocket books- and find true prosperity for all.
Finally, in the words of Howard Armstrong who so often quoted the motto of Hawaii: “Ua mau ke ea o ka aina I ka pono, the prosperity of the land is established upon Righteousness.”
(send comments to: WFC83197@aol.com)
The Tennessee State Legislature recently passed a new tax on tobacco. The bill raises the tax on a pack of cigarettes 220%, from 20 cents to 62 cents. It’s still below the national average of 80 cents, but why in the world would our representatives in Nashville be raising any taxes at all when we’re experiencing a $300 million state surplus? The answer could be: there are prosperous advantages to be obtained by both Big Government and Big Tobacco.
In a new book written by Timothy Carney, “The Big Ripoff: How Big Business and Big Government Steal Your Money,” the deceptively clever stratagem is revealed.
The name of the game is Monopoly. Centralizing power and control enables the “Royal Elites” in both our economy and our government to prosper. By eliminating the competition through government-created obstacles like taxes and regulations, Big Business- who can withstand such obstacles- obtains a greater market share for itself.
But, what do government officials receive for going to the trouble of instituting such state-sponsored franchises, or “syndicates?”
It’s been said that money is the mother’s milk of politics. Politicians are always in need of more cash. The 2008 presidential race will likely be the first billion dollar campaign in history. Top candidates are facing the proposition of raising a quarter of a million dollars a day! Even local races are getting expensive. A small district seat in the Tennessee Legislature will run you about six figures today. This system of campaign finance and lobbying is nothing new, but increasingly, our government seems to be “for sale” to the highest bidder. But, how is it that those bidding the highest amounts are curiously the very ones who would SEEM to suffer the most from the political results they are buying?
One of the biggest lies ever produced is the populist idealism underlying Socialism. Socialism began as a Big Business ruse in the 19th century and continues to this day as a monumental ploy to enrich those already rich while creating the impression that its purposes are all for the benefit of the poor and “the working class.”
“Old Money” Industrialists discovered a way in the late 1800s to begin engineering government regulations that were ultimately favorable to their monopolistic concerns. The preferential allowances these “Malefactors of Great Wealth” wanted to create presupposed the existence of certain established restrictions. Therefore, they arrived at a simple solution- first erect government restrictions, then bribe the authorities for granted allowances that could be exploited for competitive advantage. So, these allowances permitted by the power of law, helped “rig the game” with exclusive privileges that resulted in protecting the profits of Big Business. It’s a massive con game of loopholes, backroom deals and special exemptions all aimed at destroying fair competition.
So, why do they consider competition so bad? Competition means never slowing down and never resting from having to earn the customer’s business. John D. Rockefeller famously remarked, “competition is a sin.” He, like other power-brokers, resented the constant and humble service that’s required to maintain market share in an open and free environment.
Naturally, Big Business couldn’t overtly dictate their desires within the traditional, capitalist framework- so they got government to do it for them via the ingenious construct of Socialism. Big Business and Big Government were presented to the people as mortal enemies, but the Robber Barons and Politicians remained very cozy behind the scenes- carving up the economic pie like Mafia Godfathers.
As Carney points out in his book, Philip Morris lobbies for more regulation over tobacco because they know the resulting policies will hurt their small competitors the most! Raising the price of cigarettes can benefit Big Tobacco in a number of ways. It enhances the underground, smuggler’s market that they control with certain government acquiescence around the world. In addition, the higher price makes the “cheap” cigarette brands “cheap” only in content, and thus, less preferred. The lucrative duty-free market, is another instance, where it becomes more profitable for the name brands when taxes go up. Also, the tax increase creates a convenient “pay off” opportunity to the politicians who get their hands on more money to buy votes and fund campaign war chests. A well-paid politician then becomes a more faithful and pliable commodity for future purposes of fine-tuning “the game.”
The so-called “war on tobacco” is another example of this “now you see it, now you don’t” skullduggery. What this charade amounts to is a sophisticated racket for the prosperity of trial lawyers and Philip Morris.
The losers in this game are: taxpayers, consumers, less established businesses and small entrepreneurial competitors who create the most new wealth and jobs in our economy. The majority of the people- who operate without these inside connections- wind-up paying more and receiving less as a natural result of the inherent inefficiencies of a more centralized and monopolized economy. Once someone is free from competition and no longer has to “earn” the customer’s dollar fairly - the quality necessarily goes down.
Carney points out other examples: Big Oil actually profits from Environmental Laws; Enron- who is still receiving tax subsidies by the way- worked to keep laissez-faire officials off the commission that regulates the energy industry; Liberal Democrat Sen. Charles Schumer receives more contributions from Wall Street than any other senator; Warren Buffett is an advocate for higher Estate Taxes; and finally, KYOTO- the international environmental treaty restricting industry- is favored by most multi-national corporations.
Prosperity, ultimately, should be defined by what’s best for the people. Working a scam of higher taxes and more regulation that enable the wealthiest members of our society to escape the discipline of the market place- is NOT a prosperous philosophy with populist benefits. On the contrary, it’s a deception that will lead to greater bondage. We must one day free our minds of this mirage, or else, we will never be able to free our pocket books- and find true prosperity for all.
Finally, in the words of Howard Armstrong who so often quoted the motto of Hawaii: “Ua mau ke ea o ka aina I ka pono, the prosperity of the land is established upon Righteousness.”
(send comments to: WFC83197@aol.com)
Friday, May 25, 2007
The Real War in Iraq
Are you weary of the War? Are you tired of hearing all the “bad news” coming out of Iraq? Perhaps, that’s by design, huh? Well, how about some good news for a change?
Al Qaeda’s on the run! Coalition forces, buttressed by the recent surge in troops, is producing some very positive results. On May 1, five terrorists were killed and 20 were detained including some senior Iraqi, al Qaeda leaders. According to Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, “these operations will affect al Qaeda’s ability to operate effectively against the people of Iraq and provide us with more information to disrupt their activities.”
Gen. Petraeus, U.S. Commander in Iraq, refers to al Qaeda as “public enemy number one” for the fact that they are contributing the most support toward the sectarian violence there which is designed to establish a “safe haven for al Qaeda within the country.” Petraeus has said that “Iraq is, in fact, the central front of al Qaeda’s global campaign.”
Defense Intelligence Agency Director Gen. Michael Maples agrees, “al Qaeda in Iraq is the largest and most active of the Iraq-based terrorist groups.” Osama bin Laden himself has proclaimed, “Baghdad is the capital of the Caliphate.” The Caliphate is the Islamic idea of a new, Muslim World Empire that would eliminate the “Infidel Cross-Worshippers” and the “Jewish Pigs,” (aka the “Crusader-Zionist Coalition”), thereby subjugating everyone to the fascist dictates of Sharia-law as practiced most faithfully by the totalitarian Taliban regime. Under this type of tyranny- women would be imprisoned within their own homes, men would be beaten for missing prayer services and girls would never be allowed to go to school.
Two weeks ago three terrorists were killed in Baghdad, one believed to be an al Qaeda cell leader. Just prior to that Iraqi Special Operation forces- trained by the U.S.- captured three other suspected terrorists and an alleged leader of the Jaysh al-Madhi militia. This particular group has been responsible for orchestrating several death squads and car bombings.
Also in recent weeks, top Sadr militia commander, Osama Abu Qader, was killed in Basra by a joint British and Iraqi military operation. Sheikh Azhar al-Duleimi, a Shiite extremist who was linked to the deaths of five American soldiers, was killed by U.S. forces. And, we can’t forget, almost one year ago al Zarqawi, the second in command of al Qaeda behind Osama bin Laden, was killed by a fortuitous U.S. air strike.
These are evil people who have vowed to destroy America. Their threats are not idle ones. 9/11, what Osama bin Laden called a “magnificent feat of valor,” unequaled in human history, will forever stand as an undeniable testament to the twisted hatred and violent intentions of these Islamo-fascists. So, whether you agree or disagree about certain aspects of this war’s conduct, you must however admit that there have been significant military achievements and long-term benefits from engaging and defeating our enemy over there, (on the offensive), so we don’t have to face them over here, (on the defensive)!
Just last week we got news of a thwarted terrorist attack at Fort Dix. Six radical Islamists were attempting to “kill as many American soldiers as possible.” This is all part of the official al Qaeda plan for victory. There will be no concessions, no compromises and no diplomatic peace initiatives forthcoming. Their strategy, as stated by their own documents is:
(1) to divide the American people from their government;
(2) to cause them to grow weary of the war; and
(3) to bleed America financially until they are bankrupt.
Iraq IS the central battlefield where the outcome of this struggle for freedom will be decided. Iraq IS the war on terror. What we have to find is the intestinal fortitude and ultimate resolve to finish them, before they finish us! According to al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, after expelling America from Iraq, the next three steps are clear: establish the Caliphate, conquer the secular countries bordering Iraq by replacing moderate governments with radical ones, and then-- attack Israel!
The Liberals in Congress can’t even be counted on to stand firm when surrendering! Last week they caved-in on Bush’s threat of a veto regarding a new spending bill for the war. The Leftists wanted a time-line for withdrawal, but the President refused to sign it out of concern for the ongoing strategy being conducted by Gen. Petraeus. Now, al Qaeda has just opened a new battle front in Lebanon. They are attacking the modern, democratic government of Lebanon with the financial support of Syrian President Bashar Assad. I guess Assad wasn’t too impressed by his recent visitor: Nancy Pelosi. Or, maybe he was…
(send comments to WFC83197@aol.com)
Al Qaeda’s on the run! Coalition forces, buttressed by the recent surge in troops, is producing some very positive results. On May 1, five terrorists were killed and 20 were detained including some senior Iraqi, al Qaeda leaders. According to Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, “these operations will affect al Qaeda’s ability to operate effectively against the people of Iraq and provide us with more information to disrupt their activities.”
Gen. Petraeus, U.S. Commander in Iraq, refers to al Qaeda as “public enemy number one” for the fact that they are contributing the most support toward the sectarian violence there which is designed to establish a “safe haven for al Qaeda within the country.” Petraeus has said that “Iraq is, in fact, the central front of al Qaeda’s global campaign.”
Defense Intelligence Agency Director Gen. Michael Maples agrees, “al Qaeda in Iraq is the largest and most active of the Iraq-based terrorist groups.” Osama bin Laden himself has proclaimed, “Baghdad is the capital of the Caliphate.” The Caliphate is the Islamic idea of a new, Muslim World Empire that would eliminate the “Infidel Cross-Worshippers” and the “Jewish Pigs,” (aka the “Crusader-Zionist Coalition”), thereby subjugating everyone to the fascist dictates of Sharia-law as practiced most faithfully by the totalitarian Taliban regime. Under this type of tyranny- women would be imprisoned within their own homes, men would be beaten for missing prayer services and girls would never be allowed to go to school.
Two weeks ago three terrorists were killed in Baghdad, one believed to be an al Qaeda cell leader. Just prior to that Iraqi Special Operation forces- trained by the U.S.- captured three other suspected terrorists and an alleged leader of the Jaysh al-Madhi militia. This particular group has been responsible for orchestrating several death squads and car bombings.
Also in recent weeks, top Sadr militia commander, Osama Abu Qader, was killed in Basra by a joint British and Iraqi military operation. Sheikh Azhar al-Duleimi, a Shiite extremist who was linked to the deaths of five American soldiers, was killed by U.S. forces. And, we can’t forget, almost one year ago al Zarqawi, the second in command of al Qaeda behind Osama bin Laden, was killed by a fortuitous U.S. air strike.
These are evil people who have vowed to destroy America. Their threats are not idle ones. 9/11, what Osama bin Laden called a “magnificent feat of valor,” unequaled in human history, will forever stand as an undeniable testament to the twisted hatred and violent intentions of these Islamo-fascists. So, whether you agree or disagree about certain aspects of this war’s conduct, you must however admit that there have been significant military achievements and long-term benefits from engaging and defeating our enemy over there, (on the offensive), so we don’t have to face them over here, (on the defensive)!
Just last week we got news of a thwarted terrorist attack at Fort Dix. Six radical Islamists were attempting to “kill as many American soldiers as possible.” This is all part of the official al Qaeda plan for victory. There will be no concessions, no compromises and no diplomatic peace initiatives forthcoming. Their strategy, as stated by their own documents is:
(1) to divide the American people from their government;
(2) to cause them to grow weary of the war; and
(3) to bleed America financially until they are bankrupt.
Iraq IS the central battlefield where the outcome of this struggle for freedom will be decided. Iraq IS the war on terror. What we have to find is the intestinal fortitude and ultimate resolve to finish them, before they finish us! According to al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, after expelling America from Iraq, the next three steps are clear: establish the Caliphate, conquer the secular countries bordering Iraq by replacing moderate governments with radical ones, and then-- attack Israel!
The Liberals in Congress can’t even be counted on to stand firm when surrendering! Last week they caved-in on Bush’s threat of a veto regarding a new spending bill for the war. The Leftists wanted a time-line for withdrawal, but the President refused to sign it out of concern for the ongoing strategy being conducted by Gen. Petraeus. Now, al Qaeda has just opened a new battle front in Lebanon. They are attacking the modern, democratic government of Lebanon with the financial support of Syrian President Bashar Assad. I guess Assad wasn’t too impressed by his recent visitor: Nancy Pelosi. Or, maybe he was…
(send comments to WFC83197@aol.com)
Monday, May 14, 2007
Sarko Has France Tilting Right
France has just turned Red, but not in the communist sense. Yesterday, May 16, could go down in history as a “May Day” for right-wing celebration. Conservative leader Nicolas Sarkozy of the UMP became the 23rd president of the French Republic promising great reforms that mirror the “red-meat” idealism of Red State America. Sarkozy came to power by defeating socialist candidate Segolene Royal 53 to 47 percent in a run-off election that was held May 6. Producing a turnout of 85%, it was the most heavily-participated election since 1965.
All of the left-wing candidates who didn’t qualify for the run-off united behind Royal in firm opposition to Sarkozy and his so-called “radical,” “fascist,” and “authoritarian” agenda. The trend, however, for all left-leaning parties in France since 2002, has been a
loss of public support.
Sarkozy, or “Sarko” as he is known, received considerable help from the National Front party in a coalition of the Right. Their platform consists of: Traditional Values, including opposition to abortion, opposition to homosexual marriage and support for religion; National Independence from the EU and similar international organizations; reinstitution of the Death Penalty; Stricter Sentencing for criminals; Opposition to Muslim Immigration; maintaining a Strong Military; Lower Taxes; Less Spending; Privatization; Smaller Government; Limits on Labor Strikes for public servants; and, an overall more favorable foreign policy toward the U.S.
By contrast, the socialist Royal promoted an agenda for: reinstitution of free medical care for illegal aliens; voting privileges for illegal aliens; free contraception for women under 25; taxation of private TV companies to fund public media; guarantees of government-provided housing; protection of all welfare-state benefits; the creation of over 500,000 subsidized jobs; the raising of the minimum wage by 20%; and, reducing the highly successful nuclear energy program.
Liberals in America may not like the socialist label, but in almost every important aspect they resemble their socialist counterparts in all other countries around the world. The voter breakdown also follows a familiar “red/blue” pattern.
Those typically voting for the French conservative Sarkozy were: men, farmers, the middle and upper classes, the religious and the non-Boomer generations. Those favoring the socialist ticket were: women, urban-residents, the unemployed, public servants, students and the hippy generation.
Sarkozy is regarded as a very charismatic leader with great oratory skills and a high “likeability” factor. He’s advocating an economic model in the style of American and British capitalism. He seems to be a political revolutionary in the mold of Reagan and Thatcher who wants to overhaul the tax system to make it more fair and simple. He believes in “workfare” and reducing budget deficits. But, perhaps his greatest revolutionary influence will be in the area of Immigration.
France, like most of Europe, is culturally disappearing as the result of a negative birth rate and a huge influx of legal and illegal immigration coming primarily from Muslim countries. As Minister of the Interior, Sarkozy has more than doubled the number of deportations since 2002. He has been criticized for saying immigrants who don’t like France “should leave it.” His police raids against illegal aliens have been strongly opposed by the Left.
Sarkozy must wait for a June Parliament election to determine how far he will be able to go with his reforms. With so many party factions splintering the vote it may be difficult for him to obtain a working majority for his mandate of change. Nevertheless, Sarkozy remains optimistic and confident that the election will yield successful results.
Unemployment has been running in double digits for many years during the Chirac-era, and the youth unrest of 2005 underscores a continuing disturbance that must be addressed by the new administration. During the famous Paris riots and fires of 2005 Sarkozy disturbed many on the Left by calling the agitated participants “riff raff,” “delinquents,” and “thugs.” He’s also drawn condemnation from the Liberals of France for questioning a judge who freed a man on parole who later committed murder. Chirac even took Sarkozy to task for showing public disdain for anti-American sentiments being expressed by the French government. In Sarkozy’s victory speech, he pledged, “friendship with the world’s greatest democracy,” adding that, “France will always be there when they [the United States] need us.”
Maybe what irritates the French Leftists most is Sarkozy’s recent book “The Republic, Religion and Hope,” in which he suggests to the French youth that they should consider investigating Religion for some of the answers to their problems. It may not quite be the equivalent of the “Religious Right” in America, but Sarkozy does profess that his chief role model is Pope John Paul II. Considering that great Cold War, conservative alliance of Pope John Paul, Reagan and Thatcher- maybe France really does have its own modern conservative hero who will finally revolutionize their country with a rebirth of freedom, patriotism and a resurgence of national confidence. Liberals worldwide…should takenote. (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com)
All of the left-wing candidates who didn’t qualify for the run-off united behind Royal in firm opposition to Sarkozy and his so-called “radical,” “fascist,” and “authoritarian” agenda. The trend, however, for all left-leaning parties in France since 2002, has been a
loss of public support.
Sarkozy, or “Sarko” as he is known, received considerable help from the National Front party in a coalition of the Right. Their platform consists of: Traditional Values, including opposition to abortion, opposition to homosexual marriage and support for religion; National Independence from the EU and similar international organizations; reinstitution of the Death Penalty; Stricter Sentencing for criminals; Opposition to Muslim Immigration; maintaining a Strong Military; Lower Taxes; Less Spending; Privatization; Smaller Government; Limits on Labor Strikes for public servants; and, an overall more favorable foreign policy toward the U.S.
By contrast, the socialist Royal promoted an agenda for: reinstitution of free medical care for illegal aliens; voting privileges for illegal aliens; free contraception for women under 25; taxation of private TV companies to fund public media; guarantees of government-provided housing; protection of all welfare-state benefits; the creation of over 500,000 subsidized jobs; the raising of the minimum wage by 20%; and, reducing the highly successful nuclear energy program.
Liberals in America may not like the socialist label, but in almost every important aspect they resemble their socialist counterparts in all other countries around the world. The voter breakdown also follows a familiar “red/blue” pattern.
Those typically voting for the French conservative Sarkozy were: men, farmers, the middle and upper classes, the religious and the non-Boomer generations. Those favoring the socialist ticket were: women, urban-residents, the unemployed, public servants, students and the hippy generation.
Sarkozy is regarded as a very charismatic leader with great oratory skills and a high “likeability” factor. He’s advocating an economic model in the style of American and British capitalism. He seems to be a political revolutionary in the mold of Reagan and Thatcher who wants to overhaul the tax system to make it more fair and simple. He believes in “workfare” and reducing budget deficits. But, perhaps his greatest revolutionary influence will be in the area of Immigration.
France, like most of Europe, is culturally disappearing as the result of a negative birth rate and a huge influx of legal and illegal immigration coming primarily from Muslim countries. As Minister of the Interior, Sarkozy has more than doubled the number of deportations since 2002. He has been criticized for saying immigrants who don’t like France “should leave it.” His police raids against illegal aliens have been strongly opposed by the Left.
Sarkozy must wait for a June Parliament election to determine how far he will be able to go with his reforms. With so many party factions splintering the vote it may be difficult for him to obtain a working majority for his mandate of change. Nevertheless, Sarkozy remains optimistic and confident that the election will yield successful results.
Unemployment has been running in double digits for many years during the Chirac-era, and the youth unrest of 2005 underscores a continuing disturbance that must be addressed by the new administration. During the famous Paris riots and fires of 2005 Sarkozy disturbed many on the Left by calling the agitated participants “riff raff,” “delinquents,” and “thugs.” He’s also drawn condemnation from the Liberals of France for questioning a judge who freed a man on parole who later committed murder. Chirac even took Sarkozy to task for showing public disdain for anti-American sentiments being expressed by the French government. In Sarkozy’s victory speech, he pledged, “friendship with the world’s greatest democracy,” adding that, “France will always be there when they [the United States] need us.”
Maybe what irritates the French Leftists most is Sarkozy’s recent book “The Republic, Religion and Hope,” in which he suggests to the French youth that they should consider investigating Religion for some of the answers to their problems. It may not quite be the equivalent of the “Religious Right” in America, but Sarkozy does profess that his chief role model is Pope John Paul II. Considering that great Cold War, conservative alliance of Pope John Paul, Reagan and Thatcher- maybe France really does have its own modern conservative hero who will finally revolutionize their country with a rebirth of freedom, patriotism and a resurgence of national confidence. Liberals worldwide…should takenote. (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com)
Monday, April 30, 2007
The Value of Life
“Civilization,” or The Law and Government, exists to protect the innocent and the weak from the predatory evils of the powerful, who otherwise would operate with impunity under the dictates of a lawless, Darwinian Jungle where only the strong survive.
Hold that thought in mind as I relate to you the description of a “medical” procedure, called partial birth abortion, recently sustained as an outlawed practice by the Supreme Court on April 18, 2007.
As told by a nurse who witnessed the operation, here are the actions found to be “morally, medically and ethically inhumane.” --
“The doctor went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms, everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus…the baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startled reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he’s going to fall. The doctor opened the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp. The doctor cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.”
Court statements regarding other examples told by abortionists, who were fighting this ruling, related how the head of the baby is often crushed to collapse the skull, or even pulled from the body, before removing the remains. One “doctor” confessed that he crushes the skull to ensure the fetus is dead before removing it. How gruesome is that?
President Bush- who signed the 2003 Federal Law that banned partial birth abortion- had this to say about the landmark ruling, “the supreme court’s decision is an affirmation of the progress we have made in the past six years in protecting human dignity and upholding the sanctity of life. We will continue to work for the day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law.”
It was Bush’s Attorney General Gonzales who challenged the lower courts adverse ruling, and it was sustained, in part, by two of Bush’s appointees: Justices Alito and Roberts. Rounding out the majority was Bush Sr.’s appointee Thomas, and Reagan’s appointees: Scalia and Kennedy. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion.
Dissenting were Justices: Stevens, Souter, Breyer and Ginsburg. Stevens was a Ford appointee and Souter, a moderate Bush Sr. appointee. Breyer and Ginsburg were appointed by Clinton. Justice Ginsburg wrote the dissenting opinion calling the ruling “alarming.” Apparently, for this old ACLU lawyer, the horrors of infanticide is NOT as alarming as a sensible restriction on abortion.
As science moves the viability of fetuses further back during the pregnancy term, the rationale for abortion becomes less convincing. Roe v. Wade will take its place alongside the Dred Scott decision as one of the most abhorrent decisions in the history of our country. Just as the Supreme Court in 1854 ruled that all blacks were incapable of being regarded as American citizens with God-given rights, so the 1973 Roe v. Wade case made all unborn babies similarly “unprotected.” Don’t these helpless children have a choice? In the balance of rights, doesn’t the child’s right to life override the limited loss, (9 months), of the mother’s right to liberty? One is permanent, the other, only temporary.
Politics matters. Having presidents who will appoint justices who will honor the sacred purposes of law, government and civilization can save countless lives from the destructive butchery of an abortionist’s unflinching hand. President Bush said it best, when signing the ban into law, “today, at last, the American people and our government have confronted the violence and come to the defense of the innocent child.” (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com
Hold that thought in mind as I relate to you the description of a “medical” procedure, called partial birth abortion, recently sustained as an outlawed practice by the Supreme Court on April 18, 2007.
As told by a nurse who witnessed the operation, here are the actions found to be “morally, medically and ethically inhumane.” --
“The doctor went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms, everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus…the baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startled reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he’s going to fall. The doctor opened the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp. The doctor cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.”
Court statements regarding other examples told by abortionists, who were fighting this ruling, related how the head of the baby is often crushed to collapse the skull, or even pulled from the body, before removing the remains. One “doctor” confessed that he crushes the skull to ensure the fetus is dead before removing it. How gruesome is that?
President Bush- who signed the 2003 Federal Law that banned partial birth abortion- had this to say about the landmark ruling, “the supreme court’s decision is an affirmation of the progress we have made in the past six years in protecting human dignity and upholding the sanctity of life. We will continue to work for the day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law.”
It was Bush’s Attorney General Gonzales who challenged the lower courts adverse ruling, and it was sustained, in part, by two of Bush’s appointees: Justices Alito and Roberts. Rounding out the majority was Bush Sr.’s appointee Thomas, and Reagan’s appointees: Scalia and Kennedy. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion.
Dissenting were Justices: Stevens, Souter, Breyer and Ginsburg. Stevens was a Ford appointee and Souter, a moderate Bush Sr. appointee. Breyer and Ginsburg were appointed by Clinton. Justice Ginsburg wrote the dissenting opinion calling the ruling “alarming.” Apparently, for this old ACLU lawyer, the horrors of infanticide is NOT as alarming as a sensible restriction on abortion.
As science moves the viability of fetuses further back during the pregnancy term, the rationale for abortion becomes less convincing. Roe v. Wade will take its place alongside the Dred Scott decision as one of the most abhorrent decisions in the history of our country. Just as the Supreme Court in 1854 ruled that all blacks were incapable of being regarded as American citizens with God-given rights, so the 1973 Roe v. Wade case made all unborn babies similarly “unprotected.” Don’t these helpless children have a choice? In the balance of rights, doesn’t the child’s right to life override the limited loss, (9 months), of the mother’s right to liberty? One is permanent, the other, only temporary.
Politics matters. Having presidents who will appoint justices who will honor the sacred purposes of law, government and civilization can save countless lives from the destructive butchery of an abortionist’s unflinching hand. President Bush said it best, when signing the ban into law, “today, at last, the American people and our government have confronted the violence and come to the defense of the innocent child.” (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com
Sunday, April 1, 2007
It’s Foreign Policy, not Foreign Pelosi
“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.
The Executive Power shall be vested in the President of the United States.”–U.S. Constitution
Under our Constitution, the President’s Executive Power includes the primary responsibility for maintaining the relations of the United States with foreign nations. With the Secretary of State, the President manages all official contacts with foreign governments. The President is also granted the power to negotiate treaties and make executive agreements with other nations and foreign powers.
What are the corresponding Constitutional Powers of the Speaker of the House? Generally, they are the presiding duties over the House of Representatives, the influence over a legislative agenda and a limited control over certain committee appointments.
So what is Speaker Nancy Pelosi doing? She has recently helped to pass a bill that would cut the number of troops in Iraq below a level that U.S. military leaders say they need. The bill, additionally, would require that combat operations cease before September 2008- setting an artificial timetable for withdrawal. In effect, the bill is tying-up war appropriations with “cut and run” demands that undermine our progress in the war. Fifteen of the eighteen Iraqi provinces are stabilized and Baghdad-since the Surge- is enjoying the most peace its had since the beginning of the war.
According to Vice President Cheney, “if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi is suggesting, all we will do is validate the al-Qaeda strategy of throwing in the towel and coming home. Then they win because we quit.”
Now Speaker Pelosi is in the Middle East getting ready to meet with Syria against President Bush’s wishes. Syria is recognized as an “Axis” state that has helped to sponsor terrorist attacks against us. They are trying to disrupt the Saniora government of Lebanon and are allowing foreign fighters to flow into Iraq. The Administration believes that a visit by Speaker Pelosi sends the wrong message at the wrong time. Syria is, after all, a sworn enemy of the new Iraqi government. Why would Pelosi think she has a role to play in America’s Foreign Policy?
Imagine if the tables were turned and someone like President Roosevelt was getting this sort of treatment from his Speaker of the House in the late 1930s. What do you think would be the response?
Well, we don’t have to wonder. It did happen. In 1938, Speaker William Bankhead, under pressure from the appeasers of his day, was considering a proposed resolution that would call for a public referendum vote as a preresquisite for a declaration of war. Here is Roosevelt’s response: “I must frankly state that I conclude that the proposed amendment would be impracticable in its application and incompatible with our representative form of government. Our government is conducted by the people through representatives of their choosing. It was with singular unanimity that the founders of the republic agreed upon such free and representative form of government as the only practical means of government by the people. Such an amendment to the Constitution would cripple any President in his conduct of our foreign relations, and it would encourage other nations to believe they could violate American rights with impunity.”
What is past, is indeed, prologue. (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com)
The Executive Power shall be vested in the President of the United States.”–U.S. Constitution
Under our Constitution, the President’s Executive Power includes the primary responsibility for maintaining the relations of the United States with foreign nations. With the Secretary of State, the President manages all official contacts with foreign governments. The President is also granted the power to negotiate treaties and make executive agreements with other nations and foreign powers.
What are the corresponding Constitutional Powers of the Speaker of the House? Generally, they are the presiding duties over the House of Representatives, the influence over a legislative agenda and a limited control over certain committee appointments.
So what is Speaker Nancy Pelosi doing? She has recently helped to pass a bill that would cut the number of troops in Iraq below a level that U.S. military leaders say they need. The bill, additionally, would require that combat operations cease before September 2008- setting an artificial timetable for withdrawal. In effect, the bill is tying-up war appropriations with “cut and run” demands that undermine our progress in the war. Fifteen of the eighteen Iraqi provinces are stabilized and Baghdad-since the Surge- is enjoying the most peace its had since the beginning of the war.
According to Vice President Cheney, “if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi is suggesting, all we will do is validate the al-Qaeda strategy of throwing in the towel and coming home. Then they win because we quit.”
Now Speaker Pelosi is in the Middle East getting ready to meet with Syria against President Bush’s wishes. Syria is recognized as an “Axis” state that has helped to sponsor terrorist attacks against us. They are trying to disrupt the Saniora government of Lebanon and are allowing foreign fighters to flow into Iraq. The Administration believes that a visit by Speaker Pelosi sends the wrong message at the wrong time. Syria is, after all, a sworn enemy of the new Iraqi government. Why would Pelosi think she has a role to play in America’s Foreign Policy?
Imagine if the tables were turned and someone like President Roosevelt was getting this sort of treatment from his Speaker of the House in the late 1930s. What do you think would be the response?
Well, we don’t have to wonder. It did happen. In 1938, Speaker William Bankhead, under pressure from the appeasers of his day, was considering a proposed resolution that would call for a public referendum vote as a preresquisite for a declaration of war. Here is Roosevelt’s response: “I must frankly state that I conclude that the proposed amendment would be impracticable in its application and incompatible with our representative form of government. Our government is conducted by the people through representatives of their choosing. It was with singular unanimity that the founders of the republic agreed upon such free and representative form of government as the only practical means of government by the people. Such an amendment to the Constitution would cripple any President in his conduct of our foreign relations, and it would encourage other nations to believe they could violate American rights with impunity.”
What is past, is indeed, prologue. (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com)
Monday, March 5, 2007
Walking On Water
The people of the Democratic Underground website welcomed him to hell, Michael Strong said, “he was probably responsible for more human happiness and well-being than any other individual in the 20th century-- advancing the cause of Liberty more than any other person.” Who are they talking about? - Economist Milton Friedman.
The Economist magazine called him, “the most influential economist of the second half of the 20th century, possibly of all of it.” Former Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan, had this to say, “he was one of a very few people over the generations who have ideas that are sufficiently original to materially alter the direction of civilization.”
Milton Friedman passed away November 16th of last year at the age of 94. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger recently declared January 29, 2007: “Milton Friedman Day.” Airing on that same night was a PBS special dedicated to Friedman entitled, “The Power of Choice.”
Friedman, ironically, began his career as a Keynesian “New Dealer,” but later converted to the Classical Liberal point of view of Laissez-faire Capitalism. This is not to be confused with today’s “liberal” politics of the Left- in fact, it’s just the opposite. One of the reasons for his conversion involved a key analysis he developed which showed how the Great Depression was, in actuality, more the effect of a damaging over-use of government power- in the area of unwise monetary policy- than it was the effect of some mysterious under-use of government power. His resulting monetarist conclusions put him on the path to rewriting many of the major economic theories of his generation.
In 1992, an interesting situation emerged that would forever secure the legacy of Milton Friedman’s theories. Mart Laar, at age 32, was elected prime minister of Estonia. He had read one book on economics, “Free to Choose” by Milton Friedman. Facing a terrible fiscal crisis and having nothing to lose, Laar initiated Friedman’s policies of: Free Trade, Low Flat Taxes and Privatization. Now, his country is known as “The Baltic Tiger,” and is among the top 10 most free economies of the World. It is the most successful of all the post-communist Soviet economies enjoying an amazing annual growth rate of 7%. His political retractors claimed it couldn’t be done, that it was impossible, like “walking on water.” Laar, who was awarded the Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty by the Cato Institute in 2006, said it was based simply on a fundamental belief in the People of Estonia. The creative energies of individual initiative were unleashed and the Estonians became incredibly empowered through the freedoms of LESS government intrusion upon their lives. Does this sound familiar? It should, because these policies of minimizing the role of government in a free market as a means of creating political and social freedom informed the administrations of two other prominent governments in recent years: Reagan and Thatcher.
Mart Laar, like Reagan and Thatcher before him, followed an idea of placing faith in the people and in their natural abilities to satisfy their own needs through free enterprise. He believed that you shouldn’t punish Achievers in your society through “progressive” taxation- a major thesis of communism- but rather, encourage Achievers to create something more for themselves with optimism, hope and a renewed motivation to dream big dreams. For Laar, this is what Freedom is all about, and it’s something that the old Soviet system could never produce.
Prime Minister Laar said he knew Friedman’s policies had a chance to work because the
communists hated him so much, calling him “dangerous!” He reasoned that Friedman must be a “good” man if he could elicit so much fear from the Soviets! Quoting Reagan at the Cato award ceremony, Larr said, “the difference between Marxists and anti-Marxists is that the Marxists read Karl Marx’s books and the anti-Marxists UNDERSTAND them!” He added, “my experience with communism taught me how wrong it is. They hate the words ‘free’ and ‘choose.’” Besides Milton Friedman, Laar expressed a great fondness for Reagan saying, “he was the first politician in my lifetime who was not afraid to speak the truth and call the Soviet Union an Evil Empire.”
Ironically, the advice that most often came from Western economists during this time of Laar’s administration involved the advocacy of Big Government solutions. It’s a long way from Reagan’s 80s, when he built a movement on the words, “government is not the solution to our problems, government IS the problem.” This relapse involves the modern love-affair with Che Guevara and Hugo Chavez, among other Marxists. It reveals a disturbing trend according to Laar. He believes not enough has been done over the years to educate the deceived masses regarding the evils of all forms of Marxist governments. The task, as Laar sees it, is to one day regard the Communists as just as evil as the Nazis.
Upon the passing of Milton Friedman, Mart Larr had this to say,
Milton Friedman’s legacy in the modern world is the best proof that ideas really do matter. In the Soviet Union there was no place for ideas such as freedom, free choice, human initiatives or dignity. Human beings did not have any value there. Friedman’s ideas of liberty and free markets are the most powerful weapons in the fight against different kinds of dictatorships- in helping to break away from state control. Supporting free initiative and the people’s choice will
allow countries to build up prosperous societies and develop human happiness. His economic policies- flourishing as they are in my country- provide living proof that the ideas of Milton Friedman really work. Now that his ideas have been tested, it is easy to say that Friedman is right and Marx is wrong. Too many countries in the world are trying to ignore the ideas of liberty. They know that the teachings of Marx allow them more easily to control and rule their
people. The ideas of Milton Friedman make people free—that is the reason why they are not liked in countries with big government or real dictatorship. The best help we can give the modern world is to keep the heritage of Milton Friedman really alive. No, even more, to develop the cause of freedom everywhere, in the West and in the East because all of us deserve to be free! Without liberty our life is empty and meaningless. Liberty is what raises our spirit. Thank You Mr. Friedman. When we can all move in the direction you have shown us- we can make this world a better place.
“If Estonia is not a vindication of everything we believe in- from free trade to privatization to sound money to balanced budgets- I am at a loss as to how else one could validate our ideas.” Former GOP House Majority Leader, Dick Armey.
There is no collective means to individual success.
(send comments to WFC83197@aol.com)
The Economist magazine called him, “the most influential economist of the second half of the 20th century, possibly of all of it.” Former Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan, had this to say, “he was one of a very few people over the generations who have ideas that are sufficiently original to materially alter the direction of civilization.”
Milton Friedman passed away November 16th of last year at the age of 94. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger recently declared January 29, 2007: “Milton Friedman Day.” Airing on that same night was a PBS special dedicated to Friedman entitled, “The Power of Choice.”
Friedman, ironically, began his career as a Keynesian “New Dealer,” but later converted to the Classical Liberal point of view of Laissez-faire Capitalism. This is not to be confused with today’s “liberal” politics of the Left- in fact, it’s just the opposite. One of the reasons for his conversion involved a key analysis he developed which showed how the Great Depression was, in actuality, more the effect of a damaging over-use of government power- in the area of unwise monetary policy- than it was the effect of some mysterious under-use of government power. His resulting monetarist conclusions put him on the path to rewriting many of the major economic theories of his generation.
In 1992, an interesting situation emerged that would forever secure the legacy of Milton Friedman’s theories. Mart Laar, at age 32, was elected prime minister of Estonia. He had read one book on economics, “Free to Choose” by Milton Friedman. Facing a terrible fiscal crisis and having nothing to lose, Laar initiated Friedman’s policies of: Free Trade, Low Flat Taxes and Privatization. Now, his country is known as “The Baltic Tiger,” and is among the top 10 most free economies of the World. It is the most successful of all the post-communist Soviet economies enjoying an amazing annual growth rate of 7%. His political retractors claimed it couldn’t be done, that it was impossible, like “walking on water.” Laar, who was awarded the Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty by the Cato Institute in 2006, said it was based simply on a fundamental belief in the People of Estonia. The creative energies of individual initiative were unleashed and the Estonians became incredibly empowered through the freedoms of LESS government intrusion upon their lives. Does this sound familiar? It should, because these policies of minimizing the role of government in a free market as a means of creating political and social freedom informed the administrations of two other prominent governments in recent years: Reagan and Thatcher.
Mart Laar, like Reagan and Thatcher before him, followed an idea of placing faith in the people and in their natural abilities to satisfy their own needs through free enterprise. He believed that you shouldn’t punish Achievers in your society through “progressive” taxation- a major thesis of communism- but rather, encourage Achievers to create something more for themselves with optimism, hope and a renewed motivation to dream big dreams. For Laar, this is what Freedom is all about, and it’s something that the old Soviet system could never produce.
Prime Minister Laar said he knew Friedman’s policies had a chance to work because the
communists hated him so much, calling him “dangerous!” He reasoned that Friedman must be a “good” man if he could elicit so much fear from the Soviets! Quoting Reagan at the Cato award ceremony, Larr said, “the difference between Marxists and anti-Marxists is that the Marxists read Karl Marx’s books and the anti-Marxists UNDERSTAND them!” He added, “my experience with communism taught me how wrong it is. They hate the words ‘free’ and ‘choose.’” Besides Milton Friedman, Laar expressed a great fondness for Reagan saying, “he was the first politician in my lifetime who was not afraid to speak the truth and call the Soviet Union an Evil Empire.”
Ironically, the advice that most often came from Western economists during this time of Laar’s administration involved the advocacy of Big Government solutions. It’s a long way from Reagan’s 80s, when he built a movement on the words, “government is not the solution to our problems, government IS the problem.” This relapse involves the modern love-affair with Che Guevara and Hugo Chavez, among other Marxists. It reveals a disturbing trend according to Laar. He believes not enough has been done over the years to educate the deceived masses regarding the evils of all forms of Marxist governments. The task, as Laar sees it, is to one day regard the Communists as just as evil as the Nazis.
Upon the passing of Milton Friedman, Mart Larr had this to say,
Milton Friedman’s legacy in the modern world is the best proof that ideas really do matter. In the Soviet Union there was no place for ideas such as freedom, free choice, human initiatives or dignity. Human beings did not have any value there. Friedman’s ideas of liberty and free markets are the most powerful weapons in the fight against different kinds of dictatorships- in helping to break away from state control. Supporting free initiative and the people’s choice will
allow countries to build up prosperous societies and develop human happiness. His economic policies- flourishing as they are in my country- provide living proof that the ideas of Milton Friedman really work. Now that his ideas have been tested, it is easy to say that Friedman is right and Marx is wrong. Too many countries in the world are trying to ignore the ideas of liberty. They know that the teachings of Marx allow them more easily to control and rule their
people. The ideas of Milton Friedman make people free—that is the reason why they are not liked in countries with big government or real dictatorship. The best help we can give the modern world is to keep the heritage of Milton Friedman really alive. No, even more, to develop the cause of freedom everywhere, in the West and in the East because all of us deserve to be free! Without liberty our life is empty and meaningless. Liberty is what raises our spirit. Thank You Mr. Friedman. When we can all move in the direction you have shown us- we can make this world a better place.
“If Estonia is not a vindication of everything we believe in- from free trade to privatization to sound money to balanced budgets- I am at a loss as to how else one could validate our ideas.” Former GOP House Majority Leader, Dick Armey.
There is no collective means to individual success.
(send comments to WFC83197@aol.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
