Wednesday, July 28, 2010

In Defense of Cowboy Capitalism

By Roger Donway

Many Americans—and even more Europeans—employ a pre-modern ideal when judging the market economy. According to this ideal, individuals enter occupational niches, perform specified tasks, and receive appropriate material and reputational rewards via society's structures. Sociologically, it is a clockwork view of the economy: One does not take a job to make money; rather, a person does his job and society arranges to have money and other rewards flow back to him.

Psychologically, the pre-modern view interprets work according to what David Kelley has called the "managerial" outlook: "a view of one's life [in this case, one's work] as a franchise one has been given, to be operated in accordance with rules from the main office" (IOS Journal, December 1994). Morally, the pre-modern economy adopts a public-service model: to employ one's job principally for personal gain is at best a conflict of interest and at worst a betrayal of trust.

Businesspeople are the symbol of a free society—the symbol of America.
I call the idea pre-modern because it arises from the idealized medieval society, which divided the population into those who fight, those who pray, and those who labor (basically, grow food). Each sector performed its task on behalf of all sectors, with people rewarded through traditional social mechanisms. Though never fully realized, the ideal began to break down when commercial traders appeared on the scene. They were reckoned as among "those who labor," but they did not fit neatly. The problem was that traders tended to pursue their own goals on their own terms rather than performing a fixed role within a clockwork society. To use the concepts coined by Sir Henry Maine, traders belonged to a society of contract and could not be easily subsumed by a society of status.

Pre-Modern Muckraking


Today, it is hopeless to interpret the American economy as a clockwork. Yet, implicitly, that is the model our elites employ. They demand that businessmen adopt the role of "stewards" for the public's wealth. They decide what stewardship decisions are "in the public interest." And they prescribe what business arrangements constitute "a conflict of interest" for these economic stewards.

Naturally, because they hold a status view of the economy, our elites are constantly damning the actual world of commerce, and especially America's less regulated economy. They denounce executives for seeking personal gain rather than acting as stewards. They deplore practices that are innovative and risky rather than traditional and prudent. And they thunder against executive compensation that fails to meet their notion of a just price. "Cowboy capitalism" is the term often used to decry the disparity between the pre-modern image of how markets should operate and the reality of how relatively open markets do operate. But the day-to-day work of destroying "cowboy capitalism" is carried out by legislators, regulators, prosecutors, and journalists who convert perfectly understandable business behavior into crimes and scandals, either legally or in the popular mind. One need go no further than the New York Times business section to see the process in action.

Considered as financial journalism, the "Business Day" section of the New York Times does not amount to much. For example, on May 27, the section was only fourteen pages long, including four pages of tables and perhaps another four pages of ads. Nevertheless, the Times's business section is extremely valuable as an indicator of what the elite media think is important in the world of business. And on May 27, as on many days, there was no doubt what the Times's business reporters took to be important. In the six pages of news that day were eight stories about business scandals. Of the five stories on the section's first page, three were about business scandals. Here was a vivid display of how the elite media see American businessmen: as individuals driven by a mindless desire for unlimited wealth; as dangerous characters whose insatiable avarice is constantly tempting them into law-breaking; and thus as people who are, at best, in need of close government supervision and, not rarely, in need of imprisonment.

Defending Capitalism


After I read the New York Times on May 27, my mind went back forty-two years to the very first number of The Objectivist Newsletter and to its page-one article: "Choose Your Issues," by Ayn Rand. The issues she urged her followers to take up were the regulation of broadcasting by the Federal Communications Commission and the prosecution of businessmen under the antitrust laws. In the decades since, America has made progress in liberating broadcasters from government control, in part because freedom of political speech is an area in which Left and Right agree more than they disagree.

Over the last 40 years, businesspeople have become more entrepreneurial.


But the persecution of businessmen has by no means abated, and indeed it seems to have gotten much worse. In the last forty years, businessmen have become more entrepreneurial and less managerial, more innovative and less traditional. They have also become more openly interested in making money and less concerned with their social status and community standing. Meanwhile, businesses have become more complex—more technological or more abstract, and so more distant from the obvious processes of agriculture and industry. During the same period, politicians and the media have become more anti-capitalist and more primitivist—more suspicious of progress, more averse to risk, and more given to Dickensian sentimentality. As a result of these contrary trends, the slander and the mistreatment of businessmen have grown rapidly.

Now let me say, before proceeding, that sometimes businessmen do take actions that should be publicly denounced. (See my article on Enron: "The Collapse of a Postmodern Corporation," in the May 2002 Navigator.) And sometimes people in business commit frauds that should be prosecuted as crimes. But after admitting the existence of such behavior, one is still left with the question: How can we limit the prosecution and persecution of businessmen to the very narrow area in which it is actually justified?

Apparently, we cannot count on Republican office-holders to chide anti-business prosecutors and polemicists, for the first impulse of nominally pro-business politicians is to flee from any taint of bad publicity. And obviously, despite the media's much-vaunted adversarial relationship with government, we cannot count on anti-business journalists to expose anti-business legislators, regulators, and prosecutors. On the contrary, such officials are applauded by our "watchdog" journalists, who pen their "first rough-draft of history" in the style of the old muckrakers.

What we need, then, are authors who will write a first rough-draft of revisionist history, one that exposes regulators and prosecutors as oppressors and the elite media as their cheering squad. Evidently, this task must fall to the non-elite media: that relatively small number of editorialists, columnists, think-tank analysts, and Web-log authors who are staunchly pro-capitalist.

Yet even this group cannot always be counted on for a sound defense of businessmen. Libertarian authors typically defend producers on the sweeping grounds that all non-coercive activity should be unregulated: prostitution, pornography, peddling drugs—and producing software. What this defense misses is Ayn Rand's insight that productive achievement is man's noblest activity.

Conservative authors, on the other hand, mute their defense of any overtly acquisitive individual. The author will concede that, yes, the fellow was outrageously greedy and therefore wicked, but after all, the author will say, it does not appear that he committed any fraud. How is that for an inspiring slogan: "Businessmen are evil, but they're not crooks!"

The first impulse of nominally pro-business politicians is to flee from any taint of bad publicity.

In still other instances, crusading authors defend certain productive businessmen but are hesitant to stand up for big-business executives who have played rough with competitors, stepped on a lot of toes, and perhaps even violated some regulations. These writers prefer to champion innocuous little-guy businessmen who have innocently fallen afoul of a mindless bureaucracy. In contrast to this tendency, I think of the businessmen Ayn Rand chose to defend in her first issue of The Objectivist Newsletter: They were not hapless little guys. They were executives from large American firms—General Electric, Westinghouse, Allis-Chalmers—and they had unquestionably met, for years, in secret, for the express purpose of violating the antitrust law. Yet she said that it was obscene to send them to jail, though the sentence was for all of thirty days. What would she say about the multiyear sentences that have been meted out to businessmen in recent decades—ten years in the case of Michael Milken? More to the point: What will we say?

Let Us Now Praise Wheeler-Dealers


I believe it is time for pro-capitalists to offer a defense of big-business executives that is not undercut by libertinism, postmodern moral skepticism, religious morality, or utopian illusions about the free market. To that end, I suggest ten rules of thumb that ought to govern such a defense.

1. Selfishness is good, and, if the words be properly understood, greed is good. No one can ever "have enough" when it comes to income or wealth. Anti-wealth journalists ask: How many cars can you drive? How many homes can you live in? But that is irrelevant. The capital of most wealthy businessmen exists as an investment in their companies or the companies of others, so the relevant question is: How much money is "enough" for those purposes? And the answer is: No amount.

2. Equality before the law is an important political value, but equality of condition is not morally desirable. To use coercion to increase equality of condition is an abomination, and even the condemnation of freely achieved inequality is vicious.

3. But far more sinister than "equality of condition" is the Trojan horse "equality of opportunity." Too often, this has been set forth as the proper alternative to equality of condition. People say: "We don't care if individuals end up unequal as long as they have an equal chance." Yet this idea of a fair-and-square horse race is subversive nonsense when applied to society. People who are born earlier have a head-start over people born later, in experience if nothing else. People who previously acquired money have a lead over people who did not. That, indeed, is one principal purpose of acquiring money—not just to have an advantage in consumption but to have an advantage in future production. Another purpose is to give an advantage to family and friends, who may then have an advantage over others. It is immoral to base any denunciation of businessmen or any regulation of business on the assumption that people should not take full advantage of their unequal opportunities.

4. There is no basis for the allegation that agriculture and manufacturing are somehow more real or more valuable than economic activity in the service sector or the financial sector. The idea that bankers or financial traders are not doing anything economically worthwhile—an idea made popular by Tom Wolfe's novel The Bonfire of the Vanities—is a slander. All economic activity that serves genuine human well-being is valuable. Admittedly, it can be difficult for a non-economist to see exactly what economic efficiency is obtained by a highly complex business activity. But that is usually a limitation in the observer, not in the activity. (This is not to adopt the subjectivist view that every activity finding market support is a worthy one. Vice, vulgarity, and vapidity are ubiquitous in our culture, and many people make handsome fortunes from them.)

5. Much regulation of economic activity is immoral, and those responsible for such immoral regulations are more to be condemned than those who fall afoul of them.

6. An important distinction exists in the law, as Donald J. Boudreaux wrote in connection with the Martha Stewart case:

An act that is malum in se is 'wrong in itself, in its very nature being illegal because it violates the natural, moral, or public principles of a civilized society.' Examples are murder, rape, and theft. In contrast, an act that is malum prohibitum is not obviously wrong—not obviously injurious to civil society—not clearly one that should be illegal. The Latin translation of this term is 'wrong because prohibited'; that is, the only reason a malum prohibitum act is wrong is that the government has declared it to be wrong. ("Insider-Trading Prohibitions Should Go out of Style," The Future of Freedom Foundation Web site, June 6, 2003)

Prosecutors would have quite enough to do if they focused on deeds that are illegal because they violate another citizen's rights. To the extent their discretion permits, therefore, prosecutors should give secondary attention to deeds that are illegal only because some politicians or regulators decided they did not like the behavior. When they cannot avoid prosecuting such harmless offenses, they should seek the lightest possible punishment.

7. Given government's "ten thousand commandments," it is inevitable that businessmen will violate some of them and thus leave themselves vulnerable to power-seeking prosecutors. In an interview with Declan McCullagh (CNET News.com, May 18, 2004), T. J. Rodgers said: "The zoning ordinances and environmental ordinances are a classic example. I guarantee you that nobody truly understands them, and no plant can meet all of them simultaneously. So you end up with a dynamic that there are no laws, and there are no rules, and you're completely at the mercy of the local government." And Rodgers was speaking only of zoning and environmental ordinances!

8. Prosecutors say they must treat "obstruction of justice" seriously because, in the case of economic crimes, they rely heavily on voluntary cooperation. All right. But if, in the end, investigators plausibly conclude that no underlying, rights-violating offense was committed, they should overlook the "obstruction" as the very human reaction of an innocent person who was suddenly threatened with criminal prosecution. As lawyer David Feige wrote in Slate (May 6, 2004): "The problem is, when the criminal law holds ordinary people to superhuman standards, we all become vulnerable to this picking and choosing. And when the government falls in love with a crime for which it can pretty much arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate anyone at any time, we are none of us safer for it."

9. The idea of what a company owes to its shareholders has been expanded out of all proportion. If a person wishes his money to bring him ever-expanding wealth, it is his responsibility to find the right stock. The directors of a company may not intend to maximize shareholder wealth. They may wish to invent new products, or make old products widely available, or expand the company's market share. These projects may attract certain investors but be of no interest whatever to others. If a person does not know what the company's purpose is, or if its purpose does not mesh with his, he has an obvious course—don't invest!

10. Lastly, businessmen are quite right to be aggressive in taking every advantage to which they reasonably believe themselves entitled. It may turn out that they overreached and so broke the rules. But business—especially big business—should be looked upon like hockey. Rule-breaking should incur penalties, but a certain degree of rule-breaking should be reckoned as an inevitable part of the game. And the penalties for reasonable rule-breaking should therefore be civil and proportionate, not criminal or company-destroying.

The Business of America is Freedom


No doubt, some businessmen who come under attack are guilty of rights-violating malfeasance by any reasonable measure. Every group has its bad apples. Moreover, we live a century after the time of America's great industrialists, and we know that there has been a rapid decline in America's moral standards during that period. It is not possible such a decline has left businessmen unaffected.

But that said, even today's businessmen will be found much more admirable when judged by the proper standards of "cowboy capitalism" than when measured against the anti-individualist standards of a medieval social ideal. When businessmen are accused of abandoning traditional practices, we should answer, "Exactly!" When they are denounced for ignoring the public interest, we should reply, "Good for them!" And when they are charged with being selfish, we should say, "That is their value."

Forty-two years ago, Ayn Rand delivered a talk at Ford Hall Forum called "America's Persecuted Minority: Big Business." In it, she said:

Businessmen are the symbol of a free society—the symbol of America. If and when they perish, civilization will perish. But if you wish to fight for freedom, you must begin by fighting for its unrewarded, unrecognized, unacknowledged, yet best representatives—the American businessmen.

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Lindsey Graham: Sellout

by Audrey Hudson


Sen. Lindsey Graham broke ranks with fellow Republicans in a key vote Tuesday to confirm Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, signaling that there will be no united front for a filibuster of President Obama’s nominee.
In a 13-6 vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee, Graham of South Carolina was the sole Republican supporting Kagan to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.

The defection of Graham dealt a death-blow to conservatives who were still considering the filibuster strategy to block Kagan’s confirmation. It takes 60 senators to end the parliamentary procedure, the same number of seats that Republicans have held since the election of Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts in January.

"Elena Kagan will be confirmed," said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D.-Vt.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Even President Obama praised Graham’s decision and called the one crossover vote a “bipartisan affirmation.”

Bloggers on the political right including Powerline and Hot Air criticized Graham and suggested his vote might cost him his seat when he is up for reelection in 2014.

“By then Elena Kagan will have a substantial record through which South Carolina Republicans can assess the judgment of their senior senator, assuming he runs for re-election,” wrote Paul Mirengoff at Powerline.

The headline at Hot Air summed up their complaints: “Lindsey Graham demands to be primaried by conservative base.”

Graham said there are “plenty of reasons for a conservative to vote no,” but that Kagan’s personal background, and her strong record impressed him when it comes to the war on terrorism.
“I think she understands we are at war,” Mr. Graham said.

Many of Grahams colleagues disagreed, and said Kagan refused to allow military recruitment through official campus channels at Harvard Law School when she served as dean, a direct violation of the law.Her testimony was at best inaccurate, at worst, intellectually dishonest,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions (R.-Ala.), ranking member on the committee. “She knew she was defying the law.”
Republicans said that Kagan lacked any experience on the bench, and that her political record showed support for partial-birth abortion and a strong stance against gun rights.
“I am not convinced that Solicitor General Kagan will be able to shed her deeply held personal ideological beliefs, political views and experiences, and check those biases at the door of the Supreme Court,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R.-Iowa).

Added Sen. Jon Kyl (R.-Ariz.), “Ms. Kagan will be a judge who will let her policy preferences influence her legal judgments.”Democrats praised Kagan and said she would be an independent justice who used common sense, and applied the law fairly.

“During her hearings she proved herself to be well qualified for the job,” said Sen. Herb Kohl of Wisconsin.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California praised Kagan’s sense of humor and “staying power” in “hour after hour after hour” of weeklong hearings last month. “There is no good reason to deny her appointment,” Feinstein said.

President Obama issued the statement after the vote and called it “a bipartisan affirmation of her strong performance during her confirmation hearings.”“Elena Kagan is one of this country’s leading legal minds, and has shown throughout this process that, if confirmed, she would be a fair and impartial Supreme Court Justice who understands how decisions made by the court affect the lives of everyday Americans,” Obama said.

Republicans lost in the last election and President Obama won the right to choose his own nominee, Graham said in defending himself as the sole defector.
“The Constitution in my view puts a requirement on me as a senator to not replace my judgment for his, not to think of the 100 reasons I would pick somebody differently, or pick a fight with Miss Kagan,” Graham said.

Graham said Kagan “passed all those tests” of being a qualified person of good character who understands the difference between being a judge and a politician.Although Sessions has stated that a filibuster is not out of the question, Republicans have not signaled they will put up an organized fight when the final vote reaches the Senate floor. Obama asked the Senate to vote on the nomination before adjourning for its August vacation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audrey Hudson is an award-winning investigative journalist who specializes in homeland security.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

For Kagan, Progression Is Nine-Tenths of the Law

Washington Update

Family Research Council

Defending Faith, Family and Freedom


Just as there was little doubt about what the outcome of today's committee vote on Elena Kagan would be, so too is there little doubt about the role she'll play on the nation's highest court: that of an extreme activist. While most Americans can't name a single Supreme Court justice, they can certainly identify a liberal judge when they see one. In fact, Kagan's reputation is so disturbing to the average citizen that Gallup says that if she's confirmed, Kagan "would be the first successful nominee in recent years whose nomination was backed by less than a majority of Americans in the final poll before the Senate confirmation vote."

If President Obama can't have a lifetime term, then he knows the next best thing is nominating Elena Kagan to one. She shares the President's disgust for traditional morality, free speech, the military, individual liberty, unborn children, constitutional fidelity, and all things religious. As a political appointee to President Clinton, she was so fixated on protecting partial-birth abortion that she masterminded a plot to substitute her own opinion for that of two medical groups. Both the American Medical Association (AMA) and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) said there was virtually no instance in which a partial-birth abortion was necessary to save a woman's life. When that statement crossed Kagan's desk, she personally changed it to say that partial-birth abortion "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of the mother."

Byron York talks about her scary disregard for government policy in today's Washington Examiner. "Kagan is not a doctor and has no medical expertise. She just made the statement up... The ACOG executive board... adopted Kagan's addition verbatim. (The experts who draft the original statement weren't consulted.) Later, when the issue of partial-birth abortion made its way though the courts, several judges cited the ACOG statement... The judges had no way of knowing the statement was written not by doctors but by an associate White House counsel." Her track record of violating professional ethics should make Kagan's nomination a non-starter for every American Senator.

It was her rabid pro-homosexual views that led her to restrict military recruitment on Harvard Law School's campus, and, as Solicitor General, to sabotage the defense of our federal marriage law. In both instances, she favored her personal ideology and political calculations over the law. And she may spend 30 more years doing it as a member of America's most powerful court. Elena Kagan was unfit to be Solicitor General, and she definitely doesn't deserve a lifetime promotion to the U.S. Supreme Court. Contact your Senators and tell them to vote "no" on Kagan. If you need help making a case, check out the laundry list of objections to Kagan on The Cloakroom Blog.

Senate Swings, Donald Ducks

Facing pressure about his new number one at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service (CMS), President Obama sent Donald Berwick back to the Senate for consideration after his controversial recess appointment. Senators from both sides were more than a little stunned that a man in his position--with control over a trillion dollar health care budget--would be hired without at least a public hearing about his views. Alarm bells started sounding early on, when Berwick's quotes surfaced about his preference for health care rationing over treatment. His comments were so outlandish that even Democrats didn't want to schedule a hearing on his confirmation. With an election looming, they don't want to have to defend this doctor in public--and, frankly, neither does President Obama. Berwick is the poster boy for rationed, universal care. And while liberals may have the votes to push him through the process, they never wanted to let America in on his dirty little secret: he's a cheerleader for socialized medicine. The Senate Republican Policy Committee put together a list of his top 10 outrageous views, and Berwick is so outside the medical mainstream that he even calls ultrasound technology "scientifically unnecessary." For an administration hoping to avoid a messy PR campaign over Berwick's appointment, this belated attempt at transparency is too little, too late.

Gambling Supporters Work on Full House


Desperate to pay for their budget-busting health care law, Democrats are back stumping for online gambling. Ring leader Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) is holding a hearing tomorrow on overturning UIGEA (Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act) in his House Finance Committee. Of course the timing is no coincidence. The poker alliance, Wall Street banking entities and other gambling interests are among the Democrats' major backers at campaign time. So hosting a debate on the legislation seems particularly beneficial one week away from the August recess, when liberals hope to see money pour in for tough races.

But the effort on Rep. Frank's part is also sincere. He would like nothing better than abolishing UIGEA through H.R. 2267 and passing the companion bill (H.R. 4976) to tax online gambling sites. If he's successful, it would be the largest and most aggressive expansion of gambling in American history. But beyond that, it would be the first domino to fall in the push to tax and regulate the entire Internet. Gambling is devastating for families and communities, and studies show that gaming addictions are the fastest growing among young people. Rep. Frank needs to look beyond the dollar signs of overturning UIGEA to the real costs in society. Tell your representative as much. Contact them this week and let them know that American families should come first--not special interests.

Principles of Political War (Part 1)

By Wes Riddle

The people are rising up. Americans are waking up at last to the threat: a leftist elite, bent on fundamentally changing America and making every citizen entirely dependent on the state. The Obama machine driven by a socialist agenda is spending trillions of tax-payer dollars to finance takeover of the American workplace and to stifle personal initiative and community awareness and self-determination. America is built of better stuff, however, namely the principles of private property and individual freedom, and the Resistance has begun.

In May 2009 Californians launched a tax revolt, indeed at a time when their state government’s deficit was larger than the budgets of most other states and many countries. State law according to its “Initiative” process required legislators to win a two-thirds referendum of the people before they could raise taxes. Forced to hold special election with multiple ballot Initiatives to raise taxes, California citizens shocked legislators by sending an unmistakable message by margins of 60 percent even in San Francisco: Taxed Enough Already! No more taxes!

The “TEA” Party movement quickly spread, gaining steam across the entire nation. David Horowitz calls it “the most innovative, exciting and powerful grassroots force in the history of American conservatism.” Today and through the election cycles of 2010 and 2012 it is not only vital to the health of the country, but essential to the survival of America. Consider that on the eve of the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama proclaimed, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming America!” Tea Partiers threw themselves into the political breach, so to speak, saying unequivocally “No” to Obama’s plans to fundamentally alter the federal constitutional Republic and turn it into a socialist state.

The breach is one thing, but politics is really more about sustained effort and long-term commitment to ideas. A particular movement without an effective plan or strategy will not succeed. Therefore it is critical to reacquaint ourselves with some principles of political war. Many political philosophers have characterized politics as warfare by other, presumably peaceful means. Nixon described politics as being part and parcel of an overall spectrum of conflict. Most Americans are naïve politically and unfamiliar with what philosophers and political operatives know about the electoral game played every two to four years. Americans think about politics as some kind of spectator sport or movie show, a passive distraction that doesn’t require any of their personal involvement. They mistake the huge personal consequences while sitting in the bleachers or back row of a dark auditorium. They might bemoan results of an election at tax time, but then they turn again to something else entertaining or pressing.

Liberals are morally bankrupt and clueless about policy, but they still win elections because they understand American politics is driven by a dime novel Hollywood romance, with Americans sitting idly by as, you guessed it, spectators. According to Horowitz, the story they love to watch is about an underdog—you know, the little guy who goes up against the system and triumphs in the end. It is a story about opportunity and fairness too, and to win the flitting hearts and minds of American voters, you have to tap into emotions evoked by the underdog. America’s heroes are cut to a common mold: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Davy Crockett, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Amelia Earhart, Jackie Robinson, Ronald Reagan or Colin Powell, etc., etc. Always it is about the common man who rises against the odds. Yep, Mr. Smith goes to Washington and make things right! Luke Skywalker saves the planet! Horowitz isn’t as cynical perhaps about the narrative. Truth is, practically everyone in America thinks of him or herself as the underdog and aspires to be a hero. The romance in fact resonates with our deepest convictions, as well as faith in freedom and the ability to overcome adversity or to challenge and win against unjust power arrayed against you. It is the American Dream and largely her story—rising to the top through hard work in spite of humble origin.

Until the Tea Parties showed up, the political left wielded this romantic narrative as a political weapon virtually unopposed at election time. In positioning themselves as champions of the underrepresented, neglected and oppressed, leftists manufactured a version of the American story and spread it far and wide through the media and academe. According to Horowitz, the left successfully transformed America’s story from “an epic of freedom into a tale of racism, exploitation and domination. In their telling, American history is no longer a narrative of expanding opportunity, of men and women succeeding against the odds. Instead, it is a Marxist Morality Play about the powerful and their victims.” Elections have become staged political dramas too, as progressives invariably speak in the name of America’s alleged victims—women, children, minorities and the poor.

Conservatives play into the trap
, approaching politics like management on every issue, as a mere practical problem that needs to be solved—emphasizing, say, utility of the tax cut, efficiency of a certain program, the optimal method to approach this or that. They talk like businessmen in other words, and while there is nothing wrong with instituting good policies and running things efficiently or turning profit, progressives label them as servants of the rich, oppressors of the weak, defenders of the strong and privileged. Conservatives become the enemies of the people, in the liberal parlance of political warfare. Witness Mario Cuomo at the Democrats’ 1996 National Convention: “We need to work as we have never done before between now and November…to take the Congress back from Newt Gingrich and the Republicans, because ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters, the Republicans are the real threat. They are the real threat to our women. They are the real threat to our children. They are the real threat to clean water, clean air and the rich landscape of America.” Ooh, such good spectator sport. Only now it won’t wash.

_____________________

Wesley Allen Riddle is a retired military officer with degrees and honors from West Point and Oxford. Widely published in the academic and opinion press, he ran for U.S. Congress (TX-District 31) in the 2004 Republican Primary. He is currently Chairperson of the Central Texas Tea Party. Article loosely based on an essay by David Horowitz. Email Wes@WesRiddle.com or call (254) 939-5597.

Keynes is Dead; Long Live Adam Smith

by Lynn Woolley

The economic theories of John Maynard Keynes have undergone a stiff test over the past few years in Socialist Europe and in Barack Obama’s United States. What we’ve gotten is unsustainable deficits, a jobless rate hovering around 10% and the near collapse of parts of the European Union.

Obama is still a true believer, but the rest of the world is beginning the process of exorcising Keynes.

It’s about time, even though President Obama is still dutifully committed to the idea that the Keynesian model will win out. It won’t, it never has, and it never will.

Eventually, the massive debt catches up with any government as we are seeing in Greece or you get the “stagflation” that brought down President Carter. Obama, however, is driven largely by ideology and he will never give up on an economic system that carries with it elements of “social justice” and collectivism.

Any study of Keynes could end up as long as, well, the Democrats’ new financial regulation law. So suffice it to say that he is considered by many the great economist of the 20th Century. His ideas, presented in The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, published in 1936, essentially argue that recessions are best mitigated by vast government intervention—like stimulus spending. Keyes believed in a “multiplier” that would produce $1.50 worth of growth for each $1 spent.

It never works out that way. The $1 in spending comes from the pockets of the producing class—those operating a business or gainfully employed—or it is borrowed. So it either becomes a drag on business or increases the debt.

But then, the argument goes, why didn’t I and other talk radio hosts criticize President Bush when he installed a new entitlement and failed to veto big spending bills? We can easily put that to rest. In 2006, Rush Limbaugh announced that he would no longer “carry the water” for the Bush administration.

I was asked by the Dallas Morning News to write a column reacting to Limbaugh’s proclamation, and it was published on Dec. 17, 2006. In it, I said: “My Rush Limbaugh moment came the day after the elections. I trudged down to the garage with a razor blade and a bottle of Windex and sadly scraped off the ‘W-04’ sticker that had been on my window for the past two years. Already, on my radio show, I had given up on George W. Bush as a conservative long before Rush’s now-famous comment.”

And that was written before I even knew about TARP and Bush’s stimulus package and the takeover of two American car companies. All very Keynesian and all wrong. But not to Obama. He picked up where Mr. Bush left off.

In its glee, Newsweek published a homage to Time’s 1965 cover story “We are all Keynesians Now.” But we are NOT all Socialists as Newsweek said and we have never been all Keynesians. Read Adam Smith, Friedrich von Hayek of the Austrian School, Milton Friedman, Arthur Laffer—or Ronald Reagan. President Reagan’s 1981 “Kemp-Roth” tax-cutting bill used supply-side economics to actually create long-lasting prosperity from the throes of recession.

Obama has been telling the leaders of the G-20 nations to keep piling on the debt. In fact, he and his advisor, Larry Summers, are pushing for Stimulus III, arguing as Keynes would if he were here, to keep spending and worry about the debt later. The rest of the world is going the other way—for the simple reason of national survival. Keynes is dead. As Sandburg might say, let the dead be dead. In fact, we ought to sprinkle salt on the grave.

_____
Mr. Woolley is a Texas-based talk show host heard on KVCE AM 1160 weeknights at 8 p.m. Visit him at www.BeLogical.com.

Here's what Obama's doing with your money – in Kenya!

OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL

3 Republican congressmen reveal Barack secretly spent $23 million


By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2010 WorldNetDaily


An investigation by three Republican congressmen has revealed the Obama administration has secretly spent $23 million of U.S. taxpayer dollars in Kenya to fund a "Yes" vote on a constitutional referendum scheduled for Aug. 4 that would increase access to abortions in Kenya and establish legal status for Islamic law tribunals.

Meanwhile, trusted sources in Kenya tell WND that the White House has used Vice President Joseph Biden's trip to Kenya in June and the office of U.S. Ambassador to Kenya Michael E. Ranneberger to put out the message that passage of the referendum would enable the White House to open the floodgates to allow millions of dollars of additional U.S. government aid and private investment capital to flow into Kenya.

Last week, in response to inquiries from Reps. Chris Smith, R-N.J., Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., and Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, admitted to spending more than $23 million of U.S. taxpayer money to influence voters in Kenya to pass the highly contentious constitution.

Learn details of Obama's Kenya connections. Get Jerome Corsi's "The Obama Nation," autographed by the author, exclusively from WND's online store.

"Despite denials, the Obama administration's funding to support passage of the controversial Kenyan proposed constitution is clear," Jeff Sagnip, spokesman for Rep. Smith, told WND in an e-mail over the weekend. "It constitutes U.S. monetary interference in a sovereign nation's voting process. If passed the constitution would dramatically alter existing pro-life laws."

Sagnip pointed out that the proposed constitution would water down the existing abortion law. It would permit abortion when "in the opinion of a trained health professional, there is need for emergency treatment or the life or health of the mother is in danger, or if permitted by any other written law." That language, Sagnip said, is "obviously vague" and riddled with "blatant loopholes."

Islamic courts

The proposed constitution would also give legal status to what are known as "Kadhi Courts," constituting an Islamic judicial structure within the overall structure of the Kenyan legal structure, to resolve disputes between Muslims under Shariah, or Islamic law.

Critics have charged that the constitutional provision to codify Kadhi Courts would violate the separation of state and religion by allowing Islamic law to have official legal status.

WND previously reported that in the 2007 presidential campaign in Kenya, Raila Odinga – the presidential candidate of the Orange Democratic Party and a Luo tribesman like Obama's father –signed an undisclosed memorandum of understanding with radical Muslims in Kenya to expand Islamic law within the country in exchange for Muslim support of his candidacy.

As reported by Ecumenical News International in the U.K., many Kenyans believe the provision in the proposed referendum that would establish Kadhi courts is a fulfillment of the agreement Odinga made with Sheik Abdullah Abdi, the chairman of the National Muslim Leaders Forum.

U.S. taxpayers suppory "Yes" vote

According to Smith's office, the USAID inspector general had identified the following programs with direct ties to supporting the "Yes" vote the Obama administration had funded in Kenya:

Provincial Peace Forum, Eastern Providence: $97,633.33 to "gain buy-in for the new proposed constitution by educating the professional elites in Isiolo South Constituency about its benefits and getting their commitment to use their influence to ensure people register and vote 'Yes' at the referendum."

Central Organization of Trade Unions
, Kenya (COTU): $91,106.66 to "marshal a coalition of pro-Constitution individuals, institutions, and organizations to drum up political support for the Proposed Constitution by organizing a public rally at the historic Kamukunji Grounds, Nairobi."

Provincial Commissioner North Eastern Province: $99,220 for "one of a series of activities that aim to contribute to an 'overrepresentation' of the 'Yes' voters at the next referendum. Specifically, OTI will provide support to the office of the Provincial Commissioner (PC) in the form of transportation and fuel.

Kenya Muslim Youth Alliance (KMYA): $56,953.33 for "one of a series of activities that aim to contribute to an 'overrepresentation' of the 'Yes' voters at the next referendum. Specifically, OTI will provide support to Kenya Muslims Youth Alliance (KMYA) in the form of transportation and communications.

Provincial Peace Forum, Rift Valley Province: $94,193.33 to "build on previous activities in the North Rift as an entry point for a 'Yes' campaign on the constitution. Specifically, this activity will serve to gain buy-in for the new proposed constitution by getting the professional elites' commitment."

Inter community Peace Choir Organization: $38,600 for "one of a series of activities aimed at facilitating registration of approximately 20,000 in cosmopolitan areas occupied by IDPs for a 'Yes' vote at the next referendum."

North Rift Theatre Ambassadors: $37,773.33 for "one of a series of activities aimed at facilitating registration of approximately 20,000 in cosmopolitan areas of Uasin Gishu, namely Turbo, Maili Maili Nne-Chepkanaga, and Huruma divisions for a 'Yes' vote at the next referendum."

Amani Peoples Theatre: $41,400
for "one of a series of activities aimed at facilitating registration of approximately 20,000 in Kachiliba and Psigor Constituencies-North Pokot for a 'Yes' vote at the next referendum."

Christian Community Services: $37,466.67 for "one of a series of activities aimed at facilitating registration of approximately 20,000 in the three Constituencies of Turkana South, Central, and North for a 'Yes' vote at the next referendum."

Pokot Outreach Ministries: $38,133.34 for "one of a series of activities aimed at facilitating registration of approximately 20,000 additional voters in the entire Constituency of Kapenguria for a 'Yes' vote at the next referendum."

"By funding NGOs (non-governmental organizations) with obtaining 'yes' votes, the administration has crossed the line," Smith said last week in a statement. "Directly supporting efforts to register 'yes' voters and 'get out the yes vote' means the U.S. government is running a political campaign in Kenya. U.S. taxpayer funds should not be used to support one side or the other."

The Standard in Kenya reported Kenyan Higher Education Minister William Ruto, who is leading the "Red" team opposing the Kenyan constitutional referendum, has accused Ambassador Ranneberger of crossing the "no-go-zone for foreign diplomats."

In defending his actions, Ranneberger argued he was operating within his diplomatic orbit, but "more so because the U.S. is a friend of Kenya and is pro-reform," according to the report published by the Standard.

"Ranneberger maintained he was a friend of Kenya and would therefore not shy away from pointing out the lies being propagated by the 'No' team," the Standard wrote.

"Separated by a few kilometers from another meeting, where Ruto was selling his views against the draft, the envoy promised to continue helping the push for reforms," the paper said. "The American ambassador again pointed out Obama was interested in ensuring the country embraces reforms to pave way for better governance, improved livelihood for citizens."

Obama's links to Odinga

The Obama administration's funding of Kenyan internal politics appears to follow a pattern then-Sen. Obama first set on his 2006 Senate-funded visit to Kenya.

During that trip in 2006, Obama campaigned so openly for Odinga that Kenyan government spokesman Alfred Mutua went on Kenyan television on behalf of Kenyan President Kibaki to object that Obama was meddling inappropriately in Kenyan politics, as WND reported.

WND reported in 2008 that Obama raised almost $1 million for Odinga during the run-up to Kenya's 2007 presidential election.

Also as WND previously reported, Odinga called for protests over alleged voter fraud during the December 2007 Kenyan presidential election, with the resulting protest violence leaving an estimated 1,000 members of the dominant Kiduyu tribe in Kenya dead and an estimated 500,000 displaced from their homes.

In a horrifying incident following the election, at least 50 people, including women and children, were killed when an angry mob forced Kiduyu Christians into an Assembly of God church in the village of Eldoret, about 185 miles northwest of Nairobi. The mob set fire to the church, hacking with machetes any of the Christians who attempted to escape the flames.

In the final days of the New Hampshire Democratic primary, after the post-election violence in Kenya, Obama told reporters he continued to remain in contact with Odinga by telephone.

Obama did not object to Odinga's continued push to share the head of state with President Mwai Kibaki despite Odinga's electoral defeat.

Instead, Obama worked with former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan to end the violence by creating for Odinga the position of prime minister – a position not defined in the Kenyan constitution – so Odinga could become co-head of state with Kibaki.

As recently as May, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the top prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands, was in Kenya to investigate the possibility of bringing criminal charges against both Kibaki and Odinga for their roles in the post-election violence.

Monday, July 19, 2010

Homosexual Hate Crime/ENDA Legislation Tops Obama Agenda

FIGHT ENDA

Protect the religious liberties of employers and employees.

What is ENDA?
aka Employment Non-Discrimination Act

ENDA is a "one size fits all" solution to alleged discrimination that erases all marriage-based distinctions. It grants special rights to homosexuals while ignoring those of employers. The federal government should not force private businesses to abandon their moral principles.

FRC Action opposes this legislation on the following grounds:

Such legislation affords special protection to a group that is not disadvantaged.
The issue is not job discrimination.

The first "religious exemption" clause is very narrow and offers no clear protection to church-related businesses.

The second "religious exemption" clause fails to offer protection for all hiring by church-related organizations or businesses.

It is unlikely that the "religious exemption" included in the bill would survive court challenge.

ENDA would mandate the employment of homosexuals in inappropriate occupations.

ENDA violates employers' and employees' Constitutional freedoms of religion, speech and association.

ENDA would approvingly bring private behavior considered immoral by many into the public square.

Republican Senators Must Filibuster Elena Kagan

by Erick Erickson


Americans have now learned about the extreme views of Solicitor General Elena Kagan, President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court.

Kagan’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee contained much clear evidence of her expansive view of federal power and her lack of respect for the 2nd Amendment. Kagan’s views on the Commerce Clause and Americans’ right to “keep and bear arms” make her unfit to serve on the Supreme Court.

Senators should filibuster her nomination to stop her sitting on the highest court in the land.

Much has been made of Kagan’s banning military recruiting from the campus of the Harvard Law School when she was dean there and her extreme views on abortion. there is also her career of political activism, which should serve as a disqualifier for Kagan to serve as a judge on any court.

Those issues are very important and are reasons enough to vote no on her nomination, but just to reach the now-accepted Senate standard of “extraordinary circumstances” for a filibuster, senators need to look no further than Kagan’s record on the Commerce Clause and the constitutional right of all Americans to use a firearm to defend themselves.

Senators are reluctant to use the “f-word”–filibuster–yet it is a perfectly appropriate procedural tool to use to block an extremist nominee who will vote on the Supreme Court to take away crucial individual rights.

The Commerce Clause in Article 1, Section 8, states that “Congress shall have power .... to regulate Commerce … among the several States.” Sen. Tom Coburn (R.-Okla.) asked Kagan during the committee proceedings last week, “If I wanted to sponsor a bill and it said, Americans you have to eat three vegetables and three fruits every day, and I got it through Congress and it’s now the law of the land … does that violate the Commerce Clause?” Kagan did not answer directly, instead called it a dumb law then said, “Courts would be wrong to strike down laws that they think are senseless just because they are senseless.” This is a classic dodge of the question.

Coburn was not finished. Kagan was asked a follow-up question by Coburn and she replied that “deference should be provided to Congress with respect to matters affecting interstate commerce.” Coburn concluded by saying that “you missed my whole point.

We're here because the courts didn't do their job in limiting our ability to go outside of original intent on what the Commerce Clause was supposed to be.”

Clearly, Kagan would uphold the individual mandate contained in Obamacare and would rubber-stamp President Obama’s expansive view of the proper role of the federal government.

Kagan is also clearly hostile to the 2nd Amendment. Kagan, while she was clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall, wrote a memorandum in 1987 that she had “no sympathy” for an individual challenging the constitutionality of a gun ban. Kagan, as counsel for former President Bill Clinton, was a central player in the Clinton efforts to restrict gun ownership nationwide. The Los Angeles Times said in an article a few months ago that “gun-control efforts were a hallmark of the Clinton Administration.”

As President Obama’s Solicitor General, Kagan failed to file a brief in the McDonald v. Chicago case that found the states must obey the 2nd Amendment. So, in her capacity as a clerk to a Supreme Court justice, as a counselor to a President and as the solicitor general of the United States, Kagan has a long life of anti-2nd Amendment activism.

In the hearing last week, Kagan further evidenced hostility to gun rights. She dodged questions from Sen. Chuck Grassley (R.-Iowa) about her view on the right to “keep and bear arms.”

Kagan said that “I know that the scholarship in this area has suggested that there’s a very strong view that there is an individual right under the 2nd Amendment.” This is a mere statement of fact. Kagan refused to voice her support for a natural right of self-defense and did not explain in detail her views on why she thought it constitutional for her to fight against Americans’ constitutionally recognized right.

Justice Sotomayor argued last week in the McDonald decision that the landmark Heller decision holding that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right should be reversed.

Sotomayor’s responses to questions in the case sound very familiar to those who listened to the evasive answers of Kagan before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Sotomayor signed an opinion in the McDonald case that “the use of arms for private self-defense does not warrant federal constitutional protection from state regulation.” Is there any reason to believe that Kagan would not pull a “Sotomayor” and vote to remove the 2nd Amendment from mandatory incorporation for the states?

Senators have a duty under the constitution to “consent” to nominees or not to “consent” to nominees. Elena Kagan is too radical for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Senators would be committing a high act of confirmation treason if they allow this nominee to go on the court without attempting to filibuster her nomination.

Soros-funded group wants feds to probe talk radio

MEDIA MATTERS

Says cable-news networks engaged in 'hate speech'


By Aaron Klein
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

A George Soros-funded, Marxist-founded organization with close ties to the White House has urged the Federal Communications Commission to investigate talk radio and cable news for "hate speech."

The organization, calling itself Free Press, claims media companies are engaging in "hate speech" because a disproportionate number of radio and cable-news networks are owned by non-minorities.

WND previously reported Free Press published a study advocating the development of a "world class" government-run media system in the U.S.

The hot new best-seller, "The Manchurian President," by Aaron Klein reveals inside story on Team Obama and its members. Now available autographed at WND's Superstore!

Free Press was one of 33 organizations that drafted a 25-page petition asking the FCC to "initiate an inquiry into the extent and effects of hate speech in media and to explore non-regulatory means by which to mitigate its negative impacts."

"Hate speech thrives, as hate has developed as a profit-model for syndicated radio and cable-television programs masquerading as 'News,'" claims the petition.

The petition contends "traditional media" have "largely failed" to "provide the accurate information needed for an informed democracy."

"These failures often damage communities of color at disproportionate rates," the petition states.

The paper singles out talk radio as "particularly problematic."

"Hate has seemingly emerged as a profit-model for many radio programs syndicated throughout the country, because only a few companies own the majority of the radio stations nationally."

The paper claims a disproportionate number of media companies are owned by non-minorities, causing "hate speech" to fester.

"The media has a history of unequal representation of and discrimination against people of color, and rapid media consolidation has exacerbated the situation. In this climate of inaccurate and apathetic reporting and underrepresentation of people of color in traditional media, hate has festered and grown."

Avowed Marxist, close ties to White House

The petition states it is not asking the FCC to impose any sort of content regulations pertaining to so-called hate speech in the media.

"Rather [we] respectfully request that the Commission initiate an inquiry into the extent and effects of hate speech in media and to explore non-regulatory means by which to mitigate its negative impacts."

However, WND previously reported Free Press published a study advocating the development of a "world class" government-run media system in the U.S.

Free Press is a well-known advocate of government intervention in the Internet.

The founder of Free Press, Robert W. McChesney, is an avowed Marxist who has recommended capitalism be dismantled.

McChesney is a professor at the University of Illinois and former editor of the Marxist journal Monthly Review.

In February 2009, McChesney recommended capitalism be dismantled.

"In the end, there is no real answer but to remove brick-by-brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles,'" wrote McChesney in a column.

In May, WND reported Free Press Policy Director Ben Scott was named a policy adviser for innovation at the State Department.

The board of Free Press, meanwhile, has included a slew of radicals, such as Obama's former "green jobs" czar" Van Jones, who resigned after his founding of a communist organization was exposed.

Obama's "Internet czar," Susan P. Crawford, spoke at a Free Press May 14, 2009, "Changing Media" summit in Washington, D.C., revealed the book "The Manchurian President".

Crawford's pet project, OneWebNow, lists as "participating organizations" Free Press and the controversial Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

Crawford and Kevin Werbach, who co-directed the Obama transition team's Federal Communications Commission Review team, are advisory board members at Public Knowledge, a George-Soros-funded public-interest group.

A Public Knowledge advisory board member is Timothy Wu, who is also chairman of the board for Free Press.

Like Public Knowledge, Free Press also has received funds from Soros' Open Society Institute.

With additional research by Brenda J. Elliott.

:

Saturday, July 17, 2010

Capitalist Heroes

By David Kelley


October 10, 2007--Fifty years ago today Ayn Rand published her magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged. It's an enduringly popular novel -- all 1,168 pages of it -- with some 150,000 new copies still sold each year in bookstores alone. And it's always had a special appeal for people in business. The reasons, at least on the surface, are obvious enough.

Businessmen are favorite villains in popular media, routinely featured as polluters, crooks and murderers in network TV dramas and first-run movies, not to mention novels. Oil company CEOs are hauled before congressional committees whenever fuel prices rise, to be harangued and publicly shamed for the sin of high profits.

Genuine cases of wrongdoing like Enron set off witch hunts that drag in prominent achievers like Frank Quattrone and Martha Stewart.

By contrast, the heroes in Atlas Shrugged are businessmen -- and women. Rand imbues them with heroic, larger-than-life stature in the Romantic mold, for their courage, integrity and ability to create wealth. They are not the exploiters but the exploited: victims of parasites and predators who want to wrap the producers in regulatory chains and expropriate their wealth.

It's time for business people to stop apologizing for creating wealth. Rand's perspective is a welcome relief to people who more often see themselves portrayed as the bad guys, and so it is no wonder it has such enthusiastic fans in the upper echelons of business as Ed Snider (Comcast Spectacor, Philadelphia Flyers and 76ers), Fred Smith (Federal Express), John Mackey (Whole Foods), John A. Allison (BB&T), and Kevin O'Connor (DoubleClick) -- not to mention thousands of others who pursue careers at every level in the private sector.

Yet the deeper reasons why the novel has proved so enduringly popular have to do with Rand's moral defense of business and capitalism. Rejecting the centuries-old, and still conventional, piety that production and trade are just "materialistic," she eloquently portrayed the spiritual heart of wealth creation through the lives of the characters now well known to many millions of readers.

Hank Rearden, the innovator resented and opposed by the others in his field, has not created a new type of music, like Mozart; rather he struggled for 10 years to perfect a revolutionary metal alloy that he hoped would make him a great deal of money. Dagny Taggart is a gifted and courageous woman who leads a campaign -- not to defend France from England on the battlefield, like Joan of Arc -- but to manage a transcontinental railroad and, against impossible odds, to build a new branch line critical for the survival of her corporation. Francisco d'Anconia, the enormously talented heir to an international copper company, poses as an idle, worthless playboy to cover up his secret operations -- not to rescue people from the French Revolution, like the Scarlet Pimpernel -- but to rescue industrialists from exploitation by ruthless Washington kleptocrats.

Economists have known for a long time that profits are an external measure of the value created by business enterprise. Rand portrayed the process of creating value from the inside, in the heroes' vision and courage, their rational exuberance in meeting the challenges of production. Her point was stated by one of the minor characters of "Atlas," a musical composer: "Whether it's a symphony or a coal mine, all work is an act of creating and comes from the same source: from an inviolate capacity to see through one's own eyes. . . . That shining vision which they talk about as belonging to the authors of symphonies and novels -- what do they think is the driving faculty of men who discovered how to use oil, how to run a mine, how to build an electric motor?"

As for the charge, from egalitarian left and religious right alike, that the profit motive is selfish, Rand agreed. She was notorious as the advocate of "the virtue of selfishness," as she titled a later work. Her moral defense of the pursuit of self-interest, and her critique of self-sacrifice as a moral standard, is at the heart of the novel. At the same time, she provides a scathing portrait of what she calls "the aristocracy of pull": businessmen who scheme, lie and bribe to win favors from government.

Economists have also known for a long time that trade is a positive sum game, yet most defenders of capitalism still wrestle with the "paradox" posed in the 18th century by Adam Ferguson and Adam Smith: how private vice can produce public good, how the pursuit of self-interest yields benefits for all. Rand cut that Gordian knot in the novel by denying that the pursuit of self-interest is a vice. Precisely because trade is not a zero-sum game, Rand challenges the age-old moral view that one must be either a giver or a taker.

The central action of "Atlas" is the strike of the producers, their withdrawal from a society that depends on them to sustain itself and yet denounces them as morally inferior. Very well, says their leader, John Galt, we will not burden you further with what you see as our immoral and exploitative actions. The strike is of course a literary device; Rand herself described it as "a fantastic premise." But it has a real and vital implication.

While it is true enough that free production and exchange serve "the public interest" (if that phrase has any real meaning), Rand argues that capitalism cannot be defended primarily on that ground. Capitalism is inherently a system of individualism, a system that regards every individual as an end in himself. That includes the right to live for himself, a right that does not depend on benefits to others, not even the mutual benefits that occur in trade.

This is the lesson that most people in business have yet to learn from "Atlas," no matter how much they may love its portrayal of the passion and the glory possible in business enterprise. At a crucial point in the novel, the industrialist Hank Rearden is on trial for violating an arbitrary economic regulation. Instead of apologizing for his pursuit of profit or seeking mercy on the basis of philanthropy, he says, "I work for nothing but my own profit -- which I make by selling a product they need to men who are willing and able to buy it. I do not produce it for their benefit at the expense of mine, and they do not buy it for my benefit at the expense of theirs; I do not sacrifice my interests to them nor do they sacrifice theirs to me; we deal as equals by mutual consent to mutual advantage -- and I am proud of every penny that I have earned in this manner…"

We will know the lesson of "Atlas Shrugged" has been learned when business people, facing accusers in Congress or the media, stand up like Rearden for their right to produce and trade freely, when they take pride in their profits and stop apologizing for creating wealth.

This article by BRC editor David Kelley was first published in The Wall Street Journal.

Let Me Know When You Get It

by Ted Nugent


One has to jack up one's imagination to try to come up with dumber decisions from our flagrantly corrupt, out-of-control government than those occurring daily in America today.

Americans are tested more and more to convince ourselves that the rookie in chief, his Mao Tse-tung fan-club administration and gang of anti-American czars could possibly be that stupid or, horror of horrors, are in fact intentionally steering the good-ship America into the rocks.

How else to explain these developments:

• Appointing self avowed Marxists and Communists like Van Jones and Cass Sunstein et al. to be in charge of anything in America is clear and present treason from where I stand.

• Having your administration's communications director look to Mao Tse-tung for philosophical direction is phenomenally crazy.

• Surrounding yourself with America-hating radicals like Bill Ayers, Rev. Jeremiah Wright and SEIU union gangsters shows us who you are.

• Praising the bizarre cult of ACORN and turning a blind eye to their criminal activities is the act of a collaborator.

• Accelerating a maniacal spending orgy as unaccountable debt piles up at unprecedented rates is economic suicide by any sane soul's measure.

Banning the development of America's energy resources as our enemies hold us hostage is aiding and abetting those enemies.

• Appointing a self-claimed hater of the free market with promises of redistributing wealth to be in charge of Medicare, Medicaid and America's new healthcare debacle is sabotage of the highest order.

• Suing Arizona for passing a law that simply enforces federal immigration laws while ignoring the criminal violations of sanctuary cities is the act of the enemy of the state, clearly siding with illegal invaders.

• Directing the Department of Justice to drop charges against Black Panther thugs caught on film breaking federal law is insubordination and dereliction of duty.

Rudely alienating America's top allies shows just which side you are on.

Bailing out wildly wealthy, criminally irresponsible bankers and crony mortgage outfits without the permission of taxpayers is mutiny.

• Appointing racists Supreme Court justices is anti-American.

Condemning police officers and rhetorically siding with a friend while admitting not knowing the facts in a case is unpresidential.

Increasing welfare to your constituency in the face of runaway corruption and abuse is soulless pandering.

• Offering amnesty to illegal invaders is obvious voter baiting.

• Directing NASA to reach out to Muslims is illogical rookie 101.

• Ignoring the development of nuclear capability by America's avowed No. 1 enemy is suicidal.

Being praised by Russians and other Communists is an overt indicator that our enemies admire the direction of a weakening America.

• Increasing spending and taxes during an economic downturn is ignorant and dangerous.

Tying the hands of America's military to fight the war on terror is wantonly asking for trouble and will increase terrorist strongholds and their capability to attack us again.

Burdening small businesses with more taxes and regulations makes America weaker, increases unemployment, reduces America's productivity and strengthens our enemies.

That there are no patriots or statesmen in Congress blowing more whistles and raising more hell is more frightening than the violations of the President and his gang. With a soulless, unprofessional, grossly irresponsible lapdog media kow-towing to such egregious acts by the government which they are supposed to be watch-dogging, is as anti-American as it gets. That it has gotten this bad and this far without a meaningful response from anyone in government or the mainstream media is the worst-case scenario.

Thank God for Glenn Beck and Fox News. Thank God for Rush Limbaugh and much of talk radio. Thank God for the new Tea Party and Americans waking up to the inside job of Barak Hussein Obama and his evil destroyers of America.

November is varmint season, America. It is a target-rich environment. Vote the rats out. Clean house. Take America back.

_____

Rock legend Ted Nugent is noted for his conservative political views and his vocal pro-hunting and Second Amendment activism. His smash bestseller Ted, White & Blue: The Nugent Manifesto, is now available at www.amazon.com. Nugent also maintains the Official Ted Nugent Site at www.TedNugent.com.

Friday, July 16, 2010

Cops: Kids can't pray at U.S. Supreme Court

FAITH UNDER FIRE

Silenced! Christian students ordered to stop devotional on public grounds


© 2010 WorldNetDaily

A Christian private-school teacher is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to allow constitutionally protected prayer outside the court building after her class was "abruptly" ordered to stop praying on the grounds.

Maureen Rigo, a teacher at Wickenburg Christian Academy in Arizona, took her class to the Supreme Court complex May 5 for an educational tour.

The students stood off to the side at the bottom steps of the Oval Plaza, bowed their heads and quietly prayed amongst themselves, according to the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal team Rigo contacted after the incident.

"Even though they were not obstructing traffic, not demonstrating and praying quietly in a conversational tone so as to not attract attention, a court police officer approached the group and told them to stop praying in that public area immediately," ADF reported. "The prayer was stopped based on a statute, 40 U.S.C. §6135, which bars parades and processions on Supreme Court grounds."

That statute reads as follows:

It is unlawful to parade, stand, or move in processions or assemblages in the Supreme Court Building or grounds, or to display in the Building and grounds a flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement.

According to the Sonoran News, the police tapped Rigo on the shoulder and said, "Ma'am, I'm not going to tell you that you can't pray, but you can't do it here. Please go somewhere else."

A message left by WND at Wickenburg Christian Academy hadn't been returned at the time of this report.

ADF sent a letter to U.S. Supreme Court officials today, imploring them to stop their police officers from barring people from quietly praying outside the court.

"Mrs. Rigo was not engaging in a parade, procession or assembly. She was speaking in a conversational level to those around her with her head bowed," a letter signed by ADF attorney Nathan Kellum explains. "There is no reason to silence Mrs. Rigo's activities since these activities do not attract attention, create a crowd or give off the appearance of impartiality. The ban on public prayers cannot hope to survive First Amendment scrutiny."

ADF argues that the wording of the statute cited by the police officer does not apply.

"The wording of the statute does not seemingly contemplate quiet prayers like Mrs. Rigo's," Kellum states. "Such prayers are 'not designed or adopted to bring' Mrs. Rigo 'into public notice.' Indeed, Mrs. Rigo's prayers were not communicated to anyone outside of God and her very small group."

The group noted that the prayers are akin to routine conversations that take place during Supreme Court tours every day and that Rigo's class was not engaging in a parade, procession or assembly.

"The only logical explanation for prohibiting Mrs. Rigo's activities, while allowing other conversations, pertains to the viewpoint of Mrs. Rigo's expression," Kellum argued. "[T]he Supreme Court police have not targeted a subject matter or class of expression, but targeted a particular viewpoint for censorship. They have singled out and censored religious prayer as the only form of conversation to be silenced."

The letter states that the prayer ban "exemplifies viewpoint discrimination" in which "the government targets not subject matter, but particular views taken by speakers" in violation of the First Amendment.

In the letter, the ADF demanded that court officials allow Rigo to return and "engage in conversation-level prayers directed to her nearby companions and God."

Police have three weeks to respond. If they don't, ADF has threatened legal action to protect Rigo's constitutional rights.

"Christians shouldn't be silenced for exercising their beliefs through quiet prayer on public property," ADF senior counsel Nate Kellum said in a statement. "The last place you'd expect this kind of obvious disregard for the First Amendment would be on the grounds of the U.S. Supreme Court itself, but that's what happened."

WND has reported on a series of efforts to remove mention of God and references to the religious faith and influences of the Founding Fathers from government grounds.

In 2008, an "oversight" at the nation's $600-million-plus Capitol Visitor Center in Washington, D.C., left the national motto "In God We Trust" absent from the historical displays and at one point prompted WND columnist and veteran actor Chuck Norris to ask if he could help correct the situation.

That "oversight" was fixed in 2009 after U.S. Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., and 108 members of Congress expressed concern the historical content was inaccurate, prompting the committee's determination to make changes.

Also, WND reported in 2006 when Chaplain Todd DuBord, who works with Norris' TopKick Productions, told WND he was more than startled during his visits to the U.S. Supreme Court and two other historic locations to discover the stories of the nation's heritage had been sterilized of Christian references.

He visited the courthouse and was surprised that what the tour guides were telling him wasn't what he was seeing.

"Having done some research (before the trip), I absolutely was not expecting to hear those remarks," which, he had told WND, "denied history."

DuBord wrote to the Supreme Court and several other groups, asking them to restore the historic Christian influences to their presentations. He said he was most disturbed by what appeared to be revisionism in the presentations given to visitors at the Supreme Court.

There, he said, his tour guide was describing the marble frieze directly above the justices' bench: "Between the images of the people depicting the Majesty of the Law and Power of Government, there is a tablet with 10 Roman numerals, the first five down the left side and the last five down the right. This tablet represents the first 10 amendments of the Bill of Rights," she said.

"The 10 what?" was DuBord's thought.

Dubord began researching and found a 1975 official U.S. Supreme Court handbook, prepared under the direction of Mark Cannon, administrative assistant to the chief justice. It said, "Directly above the Bench are two central figures, depicting Majesty of the Law and Power of Government. Between them is a tableau of the Ten Commandments."

Further research produced information that in 1987 the building was designated a National Historic Landmark and came under control of the U.S. Department of the Interior. Under the new management the handbook was rewritten in 1988. The Ten Commandments reference was left out of that edition, and nothing replaced it.

The next reference found said only that the frieze "symbolizes early written laws." Then in 1999, the handbook refered to the depiction as the "Ten Amendments to the Bill of Rights."

"The more I got into [his research], the more I saw Christianity had been abandoned from history," he said.

When DuBord asked, his recent tour guide denied there were any Ten Commandments representations in the Supreme Court building.

Ex-prosecutor: Obama's Kenyan activities may be 'criminal'

McCarthy says Obama's foreign dealings as senator possibly illegal

© 2010 WorldNetDaily


In a new best-selling book connecting Islam and Obama-style socialism, a former top terrorism prosecutor chides the national media for failing to investigate Barack Obama's "borderline criminal" activities in Kenya as a U.S. senator.

Andrew C. McCarthy, the former U.S. attorney who investigated the American embassy bombing in Nairobi, Kenya, charges that Obama interfered in Kenya's internal politics possibly in violation of the Logan Act.

The centuries-old law bars Americans who are "without authority of the United States" from conducting relations "with any foreign government ... in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States."

In "The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America," McCarthy says Obama undermined U.S. relations with a strong anti-terrorism ally in an African region where al-Qaida operates. In 2006, he details in the book how Obama campaigned for a pro-communist candidate running against Nairobi's pro-American government – "in outrageous contravention of U.S. policy and, probably, federal law."

Obama spent six days barnstorming the Kenyan countryside in support of Raila Odinga, the socialist Luo who was seeking the presidency. Appearing with Odinga at campaign stops, Obama gave speeches accusing the sitting Kenyan president of being corrupt and oppressive, leaving the masses in poverty.

Obama's interference "was more than reckless," McCarthy writes. "It was borderline criminal (and that's being generous)."

Earlier, Odinga had visited Obama in the U.S. – in 2004, 2005 and 2006 – and Obama had sent an adviser, Mark Lippert, to Kenya in early 2006 to plan a trip by the senator timed to coincide with Odinga's campaign.

Read about the plans Islam has for America!

McCarthy notes that Obama and Odinga, who named one of his children after Fidel Castro, are "leftist soulmates" whose families go way back. Their fathers belonged to the same Luo tribe – and both Barack Hussein Obama Sr. and the elder Oginga Odinga worked inside the Kenyan government as communist agitators.

There is also an Islamist connection.

On Aug. 29, 2007, Raila Odinga signed a secret Memorandum of Understanding with Sheikh Abdullahi Abdi, chairman of the National Muslim Leaders Forum of Kenya. In exchange for Muslim support, Odinga agreed, among other things, to:
Rewrite the national constitution to install shariah as the law in all "Muslim declared regions."

Elevate Islam as "the only true religion" and give Islamic leaders an "oversight role to monitor activities of ALL other religions."

Establish shariah courts in every Kenyan divisional headquarters.

Ban Christian proselytism.

Fire the police commissioner for "allow[ing] himself to be used by heathens and Zionists" to oppress Muslims.

Adopt Islamic dress codes for women.

Ban alcohol and pork.

Even with strong Muslim backing, Odinga (who does business with a wealthy Saudi donor to Osama bin Laden) was defeated in the December 2007 election. But he accused the incumbent president of rigging the vote and incited his supporters to riot in protest.

Over the next month, some 1,500 Kenyans were killed and more than 500,000 displaced – with most of the violence led by Muslims, who set churches ablaze and hacked Christians to death with machetes.

All the while, Odinga was in regular communications with Obama, who publicly called for an end to the violence.

"Odinga's strategy, the extortion strategy of Islamist intimidation, worked to a fare-thee-well," McCarthy notes in his book. To appease his angry mob of supporters, he was named prime minister and allowed to share power with the president.

"With Obama's helping hand, leftists and Islamists had combined forces to overwhelm a constitutional democracy," McCarthy says, while decrying the national media's "stubborn disinterest" in the "stunning" chain of events.

The same alliance can be seen in the U.S., he says, as the Obama administration reaches out to the radical Muslim Brotherhood, which according to the FBI, has a plan to infiltrate and sabotage the U.S. from within. Obama and other Alinsky "revolutionaries" are carrying out a similar plan, he maintains.

McCarthy says that while there's no evidence Obama is a practicing Muslim, he shares Muslim Brotherhood hatred for America and "the Muslim Brotherhood's sabotage strategy."

McCarthy says the administration ignores incontrovertible evidence tying Muslim Brotherhood front groups in America to Hamas and other terrorist groups. One of them, he notes, is the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which claims to be a benign civil-rights organization.

But he says the recent Holy Land Foundation trial – "and the eye-popping publication of 'Muslim Mafia'" – have exposed CAIR "as a farce." Quoting from "Muslim Mafia" – which he adds is an "important book" – the former top terrorism prosecutor further litigates the case against CAIR's "Hamas-tainted leaders."

In another bombshell, McCarthy reveals that he was dropped from the White House Christmas card list following his criticism of the Bush administration's purging of the words "jihad" and "Islamic terrorism" from the official military and homeland security lexicon.

Like President Bush before him, he says President Obama fails to grasp that Islam is not a "religion of peace" but "a huge part of the problem in combating 'violent extremism,'" which is the new euphemism for Islamic terrorism.

"To be sure, the same ground was staked out by his predecessor, President Bush," McCarthy argues. "They are (both) wrong."

"The need to deal with Islam is unavoidable," he adds, "not because it's an asset, but because it's a liability that can't be written off."