Why is Bishop Willard Mitt Romney not using his title? What is he trying to hide? Do we want the elder of any faith to serve as President? We need to have this conversation now!
Click to Donate to Newt Gingrich
Posted on 02/03/2012 8:33:52 AM PST by sheikdetailfeather
Mark Levin spent part of his first hour playing Milton Friedman clips and explaining why Romney’s position on minimum wage is wrong, to educate the man and us. But as you’ll see in his monologue below, it frustrates him very much that he feels he has to do so.
He starts by playing a clip of Romney today that he was very much unimpressed with, which then turned into this amazing monologue where he explained why he is frustrated with Romney’s lack of conservatism.
This is a MUST LISTEN. Here is a partial quote from his monologue but you should really listen to the full clip below:
(Excerpt) Read more at therightscoop.com ...
That’s why I’m passionate about this. That’s why I’m upset about this. I’m scared to death what’s going to happen in the next year, 2,3,4,5. I see it coming if we don’t change course! You do too! Look at the Occupy movements. I see the riots! I see the violence! I see the deterioration of our society! I see the bankrupting of Social Security and Medicare! I see the unsustainability of what’s going on and so do you!
So we can’t sit here like twiddle dee and twiddle dumb because somebody is running as a Republican who 15 years ago wouldn’t even do that! And we got to pay attention to this stuff folks!
I should not have to play clips of Milton Friedman for Mitt Romney to explain his problem with his position on minimum wage. I should not have to argue with Mitt Romney’s appointed hacks to explain the problem with RomneyCare. I shouldn’t have to explain to Mitt Romney why he shouldn’t feel guilty about his wealth and that he can explain to the American people more broadly why we want wealth creation in this country!
Because only that way can we lower unemployment. Only that way can we save the housing market. Only that way, through capitalism, wealth creation, productivity, can the American dream be returned.
Now if I can explain this in literally 3 minutes, why can’t he?!?!
And I know the answer to it and you’re not going to like it. Because he’s a corporatist and there’s a difference between a capitalist and a corporatist."
Ding! Ding! Ding!
We have a winner...
there’s a difference between a capitalist and a corporatist.”
__________________________________________________
LOL
Office of the Chairman
Phone: 202-863-8700
Fax: 202-863-8820
Faxing will get their attention as they will have to pick up each one rather than just give you the “Yada Yada over the phone”’
BUMP!
(Romney IS “Obama Lite”.)
As a Floridian, I’d like to apologize for my states piss poor showing at the polls a couple days ago. I think its proof that money can’t buy love but it’ll get you a boat load of votes.
It is not that corporations are inherently bad or evil; they are not. It is the LACK of MORALITY and ETHICS on the part of many of those who run them that contributes to the anti-corporate mentality. It is the individual lack of morality and integrity, rampant throughout much of our nation, that is bringing us down.
Please don't take my comments to mean I am some sort of zealot or religious crusader. I am far from that. Indeed, I have met atheists and agnostics who, because they had exceptional personal integrity and were altruistic, were both moral and ethical even though they doubted or did not believe in God. Unfortunately, the masses and our culture cannot survive w/o a belief in God; too many will only do what is best for them w/little or no regard for the needs and rights of others.
When our Republic was founded we were warned that it could not survive w/o a moral and just people. We are failing that basic standard and the results of that failure are all around us to behold.
Take care,
-Geoff
Romney is a CRONY Capitalist (Corporatist). He, like all in the “ruling class”, loves the idea of big government working hand in glove with big business to intervene in the private sector so as to put their small business competitors OUT of business.
That’s exactly WHY he got Trump’s endorsement.
EXCERPT from item below:
“Only capitalism operates on the basis of respect for free, independent, responsible persons. All other systems in varying degrees treat men as less than this. Socialist systems above all treat men as pawns to be moved about by the authorities, or as children to be given what the rulers decide is good for them, or as serfs or slaves. The rulers begin by boasting about their compassion, which in any case is fraudulent, but after a time they drop this pretense which they find unnecessary for the maintenance of power. In all things they act on the presumption that they know best. Therefore they and their systems are morally stunted. Only the free system, the much assailed capitalism, is morally mature.”
In Defense of [TRUE] Capitalism (not CRONY capitalism)
Capitalism is not economic anarchy. When properly defined, it recognizes several necessary conditions for the kinds of voluntary relationships it supports.
One of these is the existence of inherent human rights, such as the right to make decisions, the right to be free, the right to hold property, and the right to exchange peacefully what one owns for something else.
Capitalism also presupposes a system of morality. Under capitalism, there are definite limits, moral and otherwise, to the ways in which people can exchange.
Capitalism should be viewed as a system of voluntary relationships within a framework of laws that protect people’s rights against force, fraud, theft, and violations of contracts. “Thou shalt not steal” and “Thou shalt not lie” are part of the underlying moral constraints of the system. After all, economic exchanges can hardly be voluntary if one participant is coerced, deceived, defrauded, or robbed.
Deviations from the market ideal usually occur because of defects in human nature. Human beings naturally crave security and guaranteed success, values not found readily in a free market. Genuine competition always carries with it the possibility of failure and loss. Consequently, the human desire for security leads people to avoid competition whenever possible, encourages them to operate outside the market, and induces them to subvert the market process through behavior that is often questionable and dishonest.
This quest for guaranteed success often leads people to seek special favors from powerful members of government through such means as regulations and restrictions on free exchange.
One of the more effective ways of mitigating the effects of human sin in society is dispersing and decentralizing power. The combination of a free market economy and limited constitutional government is the most effective means yet devised to impede the concentration of economic and political power in the hands of a small number of people.
The Religious Left should be aware that their opposition to amassing wealth and power is far more likely to bear fruit with a conservative understanding of economics and government than with the big-government approach of political liberalism.
Every person’s ultimate protection against coercion requires control over some private spheres of life where he or she can be free.
Private ownership of property is an important buffer against the exorbitant consolidation of power by government.
Liberal critics also contend that capitalism encourages the development of monopolies. The real source of monopolies, however, is not the free market but governmental intervention with the market.
The only monopolies that have ever attained lasting immunity from competition did so by governmental fiat, regulation, or support of some other kind.
Governments create monopolies by granting one organization the exclusive privilege of doing business or by establishing de facto monopolies through regulatory agencies whose alleged purpose is the enforcement of competition but whose real effect is the limitation of competition.
Economic interventionism and socialism are the real sources of monopolies.
This is illustrated, for example, in the success of the American robber barons of the nineteenth century. Without government aid such as subsidies, the robber barons would never have succeeded.
Liberals blame capitalism for every evil in contemporary society, including its greed, materialism, selfishness, the prevalence of fraudulent behavior, the debasement of society’s tastes, the pollution of the environment, the alienation and despair within society, and vast disparities of wealth. Even racism and sexism are treated as effects of capitalism.
Many of the objections to a market system result from a simple but fallacious two-step operation.
First, some undesirable feature is noted in a society that is allegedly capitalistic; then it is simply asserted that capitalism is the cause of this problem.
Logic texts call this the Fallacy of False Cause.
Mere coincidence does not prove causal connection. Moreover, this belief ignores the fact that these same features exist in interventionist and socialist societies.
The Issue of Greed
Liberal critics of capitalism often attack it for encouraging greed. The truth, however, is that the mechanism of the market actually neutralizes greed as it forces people to find ways of serving the needs of those with whom they wish to exchange.
As long as our rights are protected (a basic precondition of market exchanges), the greed of others cannot harm us.
As long as greedy people are prohibited from introducing force, fraud, and theft into the exchange process and as long as these persons cannot secure special privileges from the state under interventionist or socialist arrangements, their greed must be channeled into the discovery of products or services for which people are willing to trade.
Every person in a market economy has to be other-directed. The market is one area of life where concern for the other person is required.
The market, therefore, does not pander to greed. Rather, it is a mechanism that allows natural human desires to be satisfied in nonviolent ways.
Does Capitalism Exploit People?
Capitalism is also attacked on the ground that it leads to situations in which some people (the “exploiters”) win at the expense of other people (the “losers”).
A fancier way to put this is to say that market exchanges are examples of what is called a zero-sum game, namely, an exchange where only one participant can win. If one person (or group) wins, then the other must lose. Baseball and basketball are two examples of zero-sum games. If A wins, then B must lose.
The error here consists in thinking that market exchanges are a zero-sum game. On the contrary, market exchanges illustrate what is called a positive-sum game, that is, one in which both players may win.
We must reject the myth that economic exchanges necessarily benefit only one party at the expense of the other. In voluntary economic exchanges, both parties may leave the exchange in better economic shape than would otherwise have been the case.
To repeat the message of the peaceful means of exchange, “If you do something good for me, then I will do something good for you.” If both parties did not believe they gained through the trade, if each did not see the exchange as beneficial, they would not continue to take part in it.
Most religious critics of capitalism focus their attacks on what they take to be its moral shortcomings.
In truth, the moral objections to capitalism turn out to be a sorry collection of claims that reflect, more than anything else, serious confusions about the real nature of a market system.
When capitalism is put to the moral test, it beats its competition easily.
Among all of our economic options, Arthur Shenfield writes:
“Only capitalism operates on the basis of respect for free, independent, responsible persons. All other systems in varying degrees treat men as less than this. Socialist systems above all treat men as pawns to be moved about by the authorities, or as children to be given what the rulers decide is good for them, or as serfs or slaves. The rulers begin by boasting about their compassion, which in any case is fraudulent, but after a time they drop this pretense which they find unnecessary for the maintenance of power. In all things they act on the presumption that they know best. Therefore they and their systems are morally stunted. Only the free system, the much assailed capitalism, is morally mature.”
The alternative to free exchange is coercion and violence. Capitalism is a mechanism that allows natural human desires to be satisfied in a nonviolent way.
Little can be done to prevent people from wanting to be rich, Shenfield says. That’s the way things often are in a fallen world. But what capitalism does is channel that desire into peaceful means that benefit many besides those who wish to improve their own situation in life.
“The alternative to serving other men’s wants,” Shenfield concludes, “is seizing power of them, as it always has been. Hence it is not surprising that wherever the enemies of capitalism have prevailed, the result has been not only the debasement of consumption standards for the masses but also their reduction to serfdom by the new privileged class of Socialist rulers.”
Once people realize that few things in life are free, that most things carry a price tag, and that therefore we have to work for most of the things we want, we are in a position to learn a vital truth about life. Capitalism helps teach this truth.
But under socialism, Arthur Shefield warns, “Everything still has a cost, but everyone is tempted, even urged to behave as if there is no cost or as if the cost will be borne by somebody else. This is one of the most corrosive effects of collectivism upon the moral character of people.”
And so, we see, capitalism is not merely the more effective economic system; it is also morally superior. When capitalism, the system of free economic exchange, is described fairly, it comes closer to matching the demands of the biblical ethic than does either socialism or interventionism.
These are the real reasons why Ron Sider and his friends in the Religious Left should have abandoned the statist economic policies they promoted in the past.
These are also the reasons why they should now end their advocacy of economic interventionism, which only encourages the consolidation of wealth and power in the hands of the few.
[People] who are sincere about wanting to help the poor should support the market system described in this chapter.” ~ Ronald H. Nash, PhD
Excerpted from a chapter of Dr. Nash’s book, Why the Left Is Not Right.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0310210151/qid=1109544766/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-7983431-0976929?v=glance&s=books
Now if only Mark would acknowledge that Santorum has campaign literature TOUTING the fact that he voted to increase the NATIONAL minimum wage ...
... and voted to prevent Congress from making cuts in the food stamp program, etc. etc. Sure, he did some great things too, but the bottom line is that Santorum is much more a big government "compassionate conservative" than a limited government one.
Between Santorum and Gingrich, Gingrich isn't perfect, but it's pretty obvious to many FReepers that he's the better choice.
What is a Conservative, Really?
http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2006/09/aloha-mr-king-i-am-so-wasted-and-what.html
Robert Frost wrote, “Most of the change we think we see in life is due to truths being in and out of favor.”
Liberals tend to view human being as basically good, which is why they are so naive about human evil and impervious to real-world feedback about the failure of their ideas.
For most liberal programs to be effective—say, pre-reform welfare—you must assume at the outset that people are basically good and won’t abuse the system. But liberal programs typically put in place a structure of incentives that encourages people to act out their greed and selfishness in antisocial ways.
The whole point of free market capitalism is that it acknowledges self-interest and greed at the outset, providing it a with pro-social outlet without anyone having to force the issue from on high.
Yes, tinkering at the edges of capitalism is fine, so long as you think things through and realize that most of your tinkering will make matters worse, not better (which was true of the vast majority of FDR’s counterproductive ideas—not to mention LBJ).
[.........]
I am of the view that conservatism is an inclination, temperament, or “cast of mind” as much as it is any set doctrine. And this is why the movement is so diverse, containing ideological factions that may lack superficial commonality, say, traditionalists and libertarians.
But on a deeper level, it has been said that conservatism is “an inclination to cherish the permanent things in existence,” which I think is as good a definition as any. As such, conservatives are naturally distrustful of radical schemes to alter society and perfect mankind. As Robert Frost wrote, “Most of the change we think we see in life is due to truths being in and out of favor.”
Temperamental conservatives also have much more of an appreciation of the dark side of mankind, and an understanding of the fine line between civilization and barbarity.
You don’t have to literally believe in original sin to appreciate how much wisdom there is in such a view, especially when compared to the inveterate liberal naiveté about human character.
Evil is not merely an “accident of history” or “the creation of a few antisocial men,” but the “immemorial tendency of man to do the wrong thing when he knows the right thing” and to “define value in terms of his own interests” (in Nash ). The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America by George H. Nash (Author) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/188292620X/onecosmos-20?creative=0&camp=0&adid=1CQJYTN1R6F9GJR5YE54&link_code=as1
Liberals tend to view human being as basically good, which is why they are so naive about human evil and impervious to real-world feedback about the failure of their ideas.
For most liberal programs to be effective—say, pre-reform welfare—you must assume at the outset that people are basically good and won’t abuse the system. But liberal programs typically put in place a structure of incentives that encourages people to act out their greed and selfishness in antisocial ways.
The whole point of free market capitalism is that it acknowledges self-interest and greed at the outset, providing it a with pro-social outlet without anyone having to force the issue from on high.
Yes, tinkering at the edges of capitalism is fine, so long as you think things through and realize that most of your tinkering will make matters worse, not better (which was true of the vast majority of FDR’s counterproductive ideas—not to mention LBJ). FDR’s Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression by Jim Powell (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0761501657/104-3671838-8609517?ie=UTF8&tag=onecosmos-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=0761501657
The conservative mind is also more likely to be endowed with a tragic sense of life, which spurs the transcendental imagination. In the absence of this transcendental reality, we are reduced to a horizontal, secularized mind “for which material existence is everything and spiritual life is nothing” and “all that is symbolic becomes ever more incomprehensible” (Lindbom, in Kirk). And without the tragic sense of life, one will be much more inclined to think that life should (or could) be fair; in short, it nurtures the victim mentality.
The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot by Russell Kirk (Author) “THE STUPID PARTY: this is John Stuart Mill’s description of conservatives...” (more)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895261715/onecosmos-20?creative=0&camp=0&adid=16E97Y2BZ6FKD30T07ZJ&link_code=as1
Russell Kirk summarized the six canons of conservative thought as
1. Belief in a transcendent order; and that most political problems are moral problems resulting from bad values. (To cite an obvious example, if Hispanic or Black Americans adopted Asian American values, they would be just as successful—unless you are a liberal who believes that intelligence is a function of race.)
2. Appreciation of the mystery of existence, and with it, opposition to the tedious uniformity, egalitarianism, and utilitarian aims of of most radical systems.
3. An understanding that liberty and equality are contradictory aims; a belief that there are distinctions between men and that classes will emerge naturally and spontaneously in a free society. “If natural distinctions are effaced among men, oligarchs fill the vacuum.”
4. A belief that property and freedom are intimately linked. “Economic leveling... is not economic progress.”
5. Distrust of radical schemes by liberal intellectuals “who would reconstruct society upon abstract designs” that simply mask the intellectual’s lust for power.
6. Recognition that change and reform are not synonymous, and that “prudent change is the means of social preservation.”
<>
Contemporary liberalism has entirely different assumptions and attacks the social order on the following grounds:
1. “The perfectibility of man”; the belief that education, environment or legislation “can produce men like gods; they deny that humanity has a natural proclivity towards violence and sin.”
2. Contempt for tradition. “Formal religion is rejected and various ideologies are presented as substitutes.”
3. Political leveling: “Order and privilege are condemned,” accompanied by “an eagerness for centralization and consolidation.”
4. Economic leveling: “The ancient rights of property... are suspect to almost all radicals.”
Why is Bishop Willard Mitt Romney not using his title? What is he trying to hide? Do we want the elder of any faith to serve as President? We need to have this conversation now!
How often were Romney’s negative ads on Newt running on TV?
Why is Bishop Willard Mitt Romney not using his title? What is he trying to hide? Do we want the elder of any faith to serve as President? We need to have this conversation now!
Friday, February 03, 2012
Government Of, By, and For the Ungovernable
http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2012/02/government-of-by-and-for-ungovernable.html
Gingrich: Romney’s Minimum Wage Proposal Potentially a Catastrophe
http://www.therightscoop.com/gingrich-romneys-minimum-wage-proposal-potentially-a-catastrophe/
Levin nails it 99 out of 100 times. If only we had a candidate who could articulate conservatism, USC, and capitalism with the same passion. Quite frankly, I do not believe there would be no stopping that person.
Levin is able to focus on the matter like a laser beam.
What is the latest news on the primary challenge? heard it was the Fla State AG that caught it not Newt. So does Romney lose delegates? also, heard the RNC is not going to abide by their own rules? what is going on in Fla?
The Great One is the last one in our corner.
However, he has me prepared to vote for an Orange Juice Can if that’s what I have to do to help get rid of this Marxist filth.
Mark Levin going nuclear is not front page news or any kind of news. It’s his M.O.
Quick question about the Florida primarys the other day. I to live in Florida and voted the other day. My ballot listed EVERY candidate including those no longer running. Were other bounties across the state the same way with their ballots?
I looked at the vote totals of those no longer running and it was significant.
I can assure you one thing. If my ballot was like others agrippa the state and had listed only active candidates. Met would have won in a landslide.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.