Conservatism is Not About Principle

Limbaugh put Republicans who work "around the edges" of the president's policies under his heel

Yesterday I wrote that conservatism "is not about principle; it is about "preserving" the status quo from the liberals attempts to rip apart conservative values any further than they already have. Conservative values are not based on objectivity, but rather on the subjectivity that the free market is the best, not that it is right."

This is the reason Rush Limbaugh is said to be driving a wedge in the Republican Party, with about twenty-five percent of Republicans--according to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel--rooting for Limbaugh, and leaders like Mitt Romney distancing themselves from him by not mentioning his name in their own comments of caution.

"'He is the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party. And he has been up front about what he views, and hasn't stepped back from that, which is he hopes for failure. He said it. And I compliment him for his honesty, but that's their philosophy that is enunciated by Rush Limbaugh. And I think that's the wrong philosophy for America,' Emanuel said on CBS' 'Face the Nation.'

"I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation? Why would I want that to succeed?" [Limabugh] asked. Fox News Politics

Listen to the conservatives and the Republican leaders. Unfortunately, they don't want President Obama to fail, because if he fails, the nation fails, and if the nation fails, the world-wide depression would be politically disastrous--for anyone who thinks his mission is to "restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation."

It would be disastrous politically for people like Romney and Huckabee and any other politician who says he or she does not want this un-Constitutional theft of free enterprise to fail. They are giving the Libertarian Party a big boost as the only free-market party. But that is good, if the Republicans don't think capitalism is morally right.

This is what I mean when I say is not about principle; it is about "preserving" the status quo from the liberals attempts to rip apart conservative values any further than they already have. Conservative values are not based on objectivity, but rather on the subjectivity that the free market is the best, not that it is right.

Limbaugh put Republicans who work "around the edges" of the president's policies under his heel, grinding on them for trying to make those policies work because in doing so they are giving up their beliefs--beliefs which unfortunately are not principles.

If they thought capitalism was right--morally, politically, and economically--they would have seen the warning signs when President Bush told them about it in 2003, and when Congressman Barney Frank said Bush was wrong.

"According to an article by Kathleen Day in the Oct. 8, 2003, Washington Post, Frank opposed giving the Bush administration the right to approve or disapprove business activities that 'could pose risk to the taxpayers.' He told the Post he worried the Treasury Department 'would sacrifice activities that are good for consumers in the name of lowering the companies’ market risks.'

"Just a month before, Frank had aggressively thwarted reform efforts by the Bush administration. He told The New York Times on Sept. 11, 2003, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s problems were 'exaggerated,' a gross miscalculation some five years later with costs estimated to be in the hundreds of billions.

“'These two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis,' Frank said to the Times." Business and Media Institute

Not acknowledging that capitalism is morally the only economic system that allows investors the freedom to create wealth will be a disaster for Republicans, if they manage to regain power. They will only seek their own forms and programs of "stimulating" the economy. Most Republicans said over and over that "something has to be done" to save the economy. All but one or two failed to mention free enterprise as the solution. The rest were on board with bail-outs and loans and stimulus packages.

But if the Republican return to power and play the same game as Obama and the Democrats, but with different bail-out/loan programs that eliminate what they called "pork", their programs will only contain what the Dems will then call pork.

The government needs to back off, let businesses fail because that is what businesses are supposed to do when times are bad, and everything will work its self out. That is what capitalism does. It is a self-regulating, self-correcting market, as we found out after President Reagan sat back and watched as:

"an economic tidal wave was moving in on the US Monday morning, October 19, 1987. The Tokyo exchange had experienced a record collapse in prices and panic selling. The Hong Kong exchange was wiped out. The European exchanges experienced the worst single day in their history.

"In the US panic first hit in the Chicago commodities exchange and within five minutes of the opening the markets went into free-fall. It then spread to Wall Street and the NY exchange.

"The Dow-Jones averages fell 508 points. By the time the NY exchange closed up stock market prices had dropped 22.6%, almost double the record losses of the crash of 1929. An astonishing 604.5 million shares had been traded that day more than double that of the crash of 1929. It was the greatest crash in US economic history.

"Black Monday was followed by Terrible Tuesday which was never reported by the US press. On the following Tuesday the world’s financial system came to within one hair’s breadth of extinction. It appeared that by noon that the market had in fact died. All trading in stocks, options, and futures shuddered to halt. For almost one hour the world’s capitalist system had completely collapsed. There were no buyers at any price.

"At this point of maximum crisis the Federal Reserve Board stepped in and flooded the banks with cheap credit. At 12:38 that afternoon the stack market rose from the dead. The resurrection of the market was the result of the deliberate manipulation by a few major firms to save the markets.

"Essentially leading corporations were entering the market after 1pm to buy back their own stocks which they had dumped that morning in order to stabilize the situation. Buying resumed on the market." [condensed from] The Reagan Revolution

The Fed did what it was supposed to do, and within hours the market was correcting itself. There was no rush to "nationalize" banks or insurance companies or mortgage lenders or the stock markets themselves.

There was no appeal to Congress to help with financial aid. It was not necessary then, and it was not necessary last fall when Bernanke and Paulson presented Congress with a three-page spending proposal for $800B.

"The Bush/Paulson/Bernanke 'panic' and 'plan' to hand unlimited funds and power without judicial or congressional oversight was ripped straight from the 'Chicago School's' playbook of inducing a financial panic in developing nations and then moving in to 'reform' the system... As noted here before: [the nation was] told we had only hours til the Apocalypse on Thursday, Sept. 18, [yet] we find the world still working 12 days later."

Before $1 of any of that money had been paid as bail-out, the market was beginning to correct itself. Only after spending the money did the economic system start tanking because "capitalism and individual liberty [were] not its foundation" any longer.

So I want Obama to fail too. Maybe then the capitalists will be allowed to step in repair the damage, and I hope that if that day comes the socialist pigs will be charged with crimes, maybe under the RICO laws for collaborating in dirty business.

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the ^sm of
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism ^tm,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger ©,
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra ©, and The Metaphysical Naturalist ©,

are the educational arms of the LLC and are:

© 2008-2009 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ^tm
mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

How Many Capitalists Does It Take?

Obama, the Democrats, and the Republicans have the entire idea of how a capitalist economy works backward. The mortgage melt-down was because government promoted unethical and unhealthy capitalist processes.

Q: How many people does it take to "stimulate" the economy?

A: Only as many capitalists as have the money to do it.

I ask and answer this question, because of several things that have come to the attention of the public:

• 200+ economists publicly declared the President is wrong;
• President Obama goads legislators on both sides of the isle to forget that wealth is created by capital investments, and to forget that
• [A]spending money without
• [B] thinking about where it is going,
• [C] where it is coming from,
• [D] how long this spending spree will take to work,
• [E] how long it will take to pay itself off, or even
• [F] whether our grandchildren will be illegally indentured servants to the spending whimsies of Obama and the 111th United States Congress--is not capitalism;
• In order to spend more money on projects than would be necessary under a fair-bidding policy, President Obama signed an Executive Order that stating that "it is the policy of the Federal Government to encourage executive agencies to consider requiring the use of project labor agreements in connection with large-scale construction projects in order to promote economy and efficiency in Federal procurement," where "project labor agreements" mean the exclusive use of union labor, as described elsewhere in the Order. A "large-scale" project is one over $25 million;
• The spending of public monies by Wall Street capitalists and others on projects that put people to work is strictly forbidden, as in the example of the corporate jets that are no longer acceptable to purchase or use, and the junkets that are no longer acceptable that would have put hundreds of hotel and restaurant workers to work, which puts hotel and restaurant suppliers to work, which puts the manufacturers to the suppliers to work, which puts farmers, textile workers, commercial laundries, garbage removal companies, cab drivers, truck drivers, and gasoline suppliers, and others to work.

In other words, Obama and the Democrats and the Republicans who agree we must spend, have the entire idea of how a capitalist economy works backward. The mortgage melt-down was not because of capitalism; it was because government promoted unethical and unhealthy capitalist processes.

It has been argued by many that if the government wants to put people to work and create or save jobs, it should give the money directly to those who will spend it immediately. Brookings senior fellow in governance studies Pietro Nivola suggested that Congress "proceed in two tranches. The first would pump money directly into the hands of consumers and businesses through a combination of judicious tax relief and quick-hitting expenditures (including, as one example, ramping up military equipment procurement and recruitment of personnel). Subsequent legislation could take up the long-term infrastructure spending and more exotic projects..."

But it would seem President Obama would rather injudiciously scold Congress for their attempt at being responsible with the people's money. "I’ve heard criticisms of this plan that echo the very same failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis," he said.

Would these be the theories of Congressman Barney Frank, who encouraged the sub-prime lending that got us into this crisis? "These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—" said Frank, "are not facing any kind of financial crisis." Frank was (and remains) the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

Would these be the theories of President Bush who as early as 2003 sent out the distress calls that the mortage crisis was on the way? Would these be the theories--[1][2][3]--never listened to, that statistically demonstrated how government spending, when used as stimulus, never works?

No. Instead, the President said, "Let’s not make the perfect the enemy of the essential. Let’s show people all over our country who are looking for leadership in this difficult time that we are equal to the task."

What he means is that what is "essential" is the profligate spending that Vice President Joe Biden publicly declared had only a 70% chance of success. "If we do everything right, if we do it with absolute certainty, there's still a 30 percent chance we're going to get it wrong," Biden said.

"Some critics, said the President, contend the bill 'is full of pet projects. When was the last time that we saw a bill of this magnitude move out with no earmarks in it? Not one.'
"Ratcheting up the sarcasm, the president said: 'So then you get the argument, "well, this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill." What do you think a stimulus is?'
"'That's the whole point,' he said, as the audience hooted and applauded."

From Wall Street to Main Street, every business owner and capitalist knows you don't throw money at debt hoping for a 70% success rate at getting out of debt.

The Democrats and Republicans both should leave it to the free market to solve the problems. Their success will come faster than anything government can do, but 21st century government doesn't want to ever have to admit that capitalism is better than socialism. Biden warned that the consequences of failing were too great for the country, to allow it to allow politics to prevent action.

What Washington can't see is how greatly they have prevented the free market from acting, by promising free money that generations of Americans will discover is not free at all.

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.

The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger TM, and
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra TM are the educational arms of the LLC and are:
© 2008-2009 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

American Socialism; Theism as Skepticism; sntjohnny and Me

American Socialism Is Upon Us

"Capitalism and markets [ ] are all inherently about self-interest and the pursuit of profit," said Dr. Yaron Brook. "Capitalism encourages and enables selfishness, and as long as our culture looks at profit and self-interest as vices, [ ] big government will always be preferred to free markets." [italics added] "Why Big Government Is Back, and How to Shrink It to Its Proper Size"

http://www.aynrand.org/site/MessageViewer?dlv_id=41441&em_id=44383.0&JServSessionIdr001=efh7ehivs1.app7a

This might be a surprising perspective to many people. But it really is surprising only to capitalists who simply want to earn a living--perhaps a big living, but a living that is ruled by nothing but proper market ethics and proper ethical treatment of his or her consumers. And I am one of those to whom it is a surprising perspective.

I should not be surprised. I know full well that the market situation we are currently in was caused by zealous, not ethical, pursuit of the dollar. There is a difference. We expect the neighborhood butcher, farm co-op, or shoe store to treat the community with a high standard of ethics. To do otherwise would be to risk negative letters-to-the-editor in the newspaper, and maybe an investigation by the local TV affiliate, if the situation warrants it. Consumers who feel bent out of shape by the way they were treated locally often sue.

But on the larger scale, in the bigger market places, we all know that ethics tend to become fuzzy, or even misplaced once a rule of ethics is broken the first time and not caught. The big markets can usually fend off attacks by angry customers, unless the business is WalMart or something similar. WalMart is expected to be all things to all people; that is how it grew to be so large. Big selection plus big inventory equals low low prices; that is what constitutes "all things to all people" most of the time.

But Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, explained why the reasons for the resurgence of big government are due, "not to any alleged failures of the market, but to a longtime cultural hostility to its moral basis: the selfish pursuit of profit."

We as Americans have lived with the idea of socialism long enough that most of us do not see how its operating principles-if they can be called "principled"--have crept into our nation's politics, policies, and regulations. In the Treasury Department's U.S crazy scheme to save Wall Street but they included this in big, huge piece of socialist nationalism in section 8: "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency." [emphasis added] [see The Last Nail in the American Fascist Takeover ] more

Excerpt from Anthony Horvath’s
Christian Apologetics Ministry
http://sntjohnny.com/front/one-atheist-admits-im-right-another-responds-to-big-bang-post/364.html
And the Reclassification of Theism
as the Skeptical Position of Naturalism

"It is not very often that you get an admission as clear as the one that was posted on my forum today. I asserted in this post on my blog that at the bottom, most atheistic arguments against the existence of God are based on the ‘presumption of naturalism’ with [missing info in original post.] The atheist on my forum said:

'At the conclusion, you argue that the evidence will show God’s existence if only we give up our assumption that all explanations must be natural. What you fail to give us is any compelling reason why we must abandon that assumption.'"

Unfortunately, Rev. Horvath's critic undercuts his own position by saying he would, in effect, be willing to accept giving up reason. Horvath responds--quite logically--by saying, "The atheist in question says that this assumption can only be abandoned in the face of extremely good reasons, but it should be evident that anyone who believes ‘all explanations must be natural’ is really just throwing up a smokescreen if he now demands ‘reasons’ for thinking otherwise."

Oh, if only we would listen to what we say before we say it. In light of what Horvath said regarding the abandonment of reason for "compelling" reasons, I think the critic would have thought out his words more carefully.

But my favorite atheist philosopher said we must take men at their word. If they say it, then they said it, and we cannot presume to judge that they meant something else. This does not mean we cannot ammend our statement when our contradiction becomes evident.

But unless Horvath's critic writes back, we must assume he does not understand the difference between:

1. A principled deduction of logic that tells him that naturalism is natural, while supernaturalism is---not, by definition, natural; and

2. The decision that it makes no difference whether a thing is "natural" or "not-natural" if one is willing to suspend his rational judgment to decide that the "not-natural" can somehow become the "natural," or at least the "acceptable."

Horvath tells him--and others like him--"If you’re just starting to examine the merits of Christianity and are evaluating skeptical objections, the key here is to understand that all the later objections to things like the resurrection and miracles stem from this prior assumption."

What Horvath himself fails to explain is that naturalism was the prevailing world-view for nearly 1000 years, until Augustine.

There are four goals for the informed naturalist, says physicist and cosmologist Dr. Quentin Smith. "i) retrieve naturalism from its de facto reclassification by medieval philosophers. This is a reclassification (which may have been a result of some other deliberately chosen goal) from its original, accurate, classification in Greco-Roman naturalism, and this reclassification was effected by the medieval philosophers. This reclassification still prevails today." Philo Online http://www.philoonline.org/library/smith_4_2.htm more

Reverend "sntjohnny" Horvath Wrote Me an Email:

I Responded

Actually, I only responded to the first two paragraphs, as you will read. He sent the email because of his contention, which I challenged, that followers of Ayn Rand's Objectivism would "inevitably" come around to embracing Christianity.

[Dear Curtis:] "It is only 'inevitable' in certain senses. If you apply the principles you hold dear in Objectivism consistently I believe that you will find that Objectivism does not in fact have the answers while Christianity does.

"Consider. One of the most cherished doctrines of the Objectivist is the rights and freedoms and dignity of each individual human. However, to what degree can this be supported from an atheistic philosophy, especially an atheistic perspective on evolution, which is the prevailing scientific explanation for the rise of humans? Under this framework, a human is nothing more than an animal." [signed Anthony Horvath]

"stjohnny" and I are too familiar with each other to actually bother writing "Dear X," or actually signing it, except that my "automatic" signature is automatic, I do sometimes write "Sincerely," or simply "Curtis," and this time he finished his letter with "Yours."

My (Partial) Response

The atheism and evolution have no bearing on the freedom and dignity of the human individual.

You say according to evolution I ought to conclude man is "nothing more" than an animal. But the denotation of "Man" is that heis the "rational animal." From this perspective we conclude several things:

1. That "Man qua Man" requires the highest degree of rationality a man can discover;
2. That rationality belongs to individuals because there is no "collective" mind;
3. That since rationality belongs to the individual, just as his fingers are his, and his stomach is his, his mind cannot be coerced into doing, being or thinking what it does not want to be. more

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the sm of the

Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism tm, the educational arm of the Assemblage.

© 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®